Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Education of creationists' children Message-ID: <5@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 21:54:25 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.5 Posted: Wed Dec 5 21:54:25 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 04:46:00 EST References: <886@ihuxn.UUCP> <1231@dciem.UUCP> <2319@ihnss.UUCP> <2835@ucbcad.UUCP> <6@osu-eddie.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.origins:581 net.politics:6131 > It is not the case > that "creationtionists" simply check their brains at the door when they come > to scientific questions. "Evolutionists" have certain evidence which they > find compellingly convincing. Fine. "Creationists" happen to have a body of > evidence (yes, evidence, you can't just dismiss it as 100% garbage) which > they find equally compellingly convincing. Maybe this debate has been going on elsewhere and I haven't noticed, but "rational" arguments in favor of religous positions have been pretty rare lately... Hume, for instance, had some good rational arguments in favor of creationism (good, that is, for his time), but I think that after being beaten repeatedly at the scientific game most creationalists have retreated into dogmatism. If anybody has any rational arguments in favor of creationism that anybody seriously makes these days I'd like to hear them, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting... Wayne