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