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