Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Comments on science, society, and Darwinism Message-ID: <673@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 17:40:44 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.673 Posted: Mon Aug 12 17:40:44 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 08:29:45 EDT References: <423@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: net Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 21 In article <423@iham1.UUCP> gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) writes: > At the creation of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists' > focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the > debate in which we were engaged was not about science but about values. > Now, I would clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism- > evolution debate is not about science but a conflict of cultural values. > Until this issue is recognized and addressed, the arguments in this > newsgroup will continue to make no progress. What makes you think a direct confrontation of values would "make progress"? Frankly, I feel that the roundabout route of attacking the credibility of static, authoritarian, religious thought and values through a leading example of their abusrdity (creationism) is one of the few ways open to change peoples' minds. A direct attack tends to provoke a reactionary response. I've read articles by creationists who feel much the same way about secular humanists, atheists, etc. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh