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