Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A brief farewell & some responses Message-ID: <201@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 12:11:15 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.201 Posted: Mon Dec 10 12:11:15 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:43:32 EST References: <1572@qubix.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 30 Summary: In article <1572@qubix.UUCP> lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) writes: > >> So evolution is only "kinda-sortof true." > >Then eliminate it from the classroom altogether. (Then you won't have to >worry about creation in the public schools :-) > And what about quantum physics, whic is also only "kinda-sortof true". Should we eliminate that also? And then there's astrophysics, which is based on *extrapolation*. In fact every branch of science is admittedly tentative, and incomplete. Thus by this argument we should stop teaching science altogether. > >Then "traditional evolutionary theory" has some growing to do, rather >than sweeping the problem under the rug. It is well said by >evolutionists that the fossil record is missing at least 90% of the >record of life - the *first* 90%. >-- The issue is *not* being swept under the rug, it is merely being left to those most qualified to handle it. Biotic evolution and abiogenises are completely *different* branches of biology, and properly so. They involve different methods, and tools; someone with training and experience in one would not necessarily be qualified for the other. This is the basis of specialization in science. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen