Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: FAITH VS FACT
Message-ID: <3542@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jul-87 09:46:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.3542
Posted: Mon Jul 13 09:46:07 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jul-87 03:16:10 EDT
References: <1787@pbhye.UUCP> <1746@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Datalytics, Inc.
Lines: 56

In article <1746@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> dam@uvacs.UUCP (Dave Montuori) writes:
>This is the first time I've ever heard the Great Flood used as support
>for creationism. Furthermore, the Flood isn't too far from being
>a fact proven by honest scientific means. ...

I don't think there is any evidence for a universal flood that is taken
at all seriously by geologists.  The "Noachian Deluge" (as they tend to
call it) is part of the dogma of most Creationist organizations, and
members are often required to affirm their belief in it as a condition
of joining.  Hence the Flood is a part of Creationism rather than merely
support for it.

>...  I am against the
>involuntary lack of prayer in public schools ...

There is plenty of prayer in public schools - go by any time during
exams!  The courts and the Constitution have prohibited only
government-run prayer in schools - that is, prayer at a time or in a
manner established by the school or the teacher (which are arms of the
government).  No matter what one's religion, having the government
mucking about in it should be cause for alarm.

>...  I think the Supreme Court defined
>secular humanism to be a religion in 1961.

In one decision the Court noted that a religion need not necessarily
include a belief in a deity, and in a footnote listed a series of
examples, including some Eastern religions and "secular humanism."
According to the attorney who actually wrote the decision, this
"secular humanism" was a reference to a tiny church in California, not
the American Humanist Association or any similar group.  Further, since
no evidence was heard either way, it was not a formal finding of the
Court but just a passing reference - an "obiter dictum" to lawyers.

Although secular humanists believe in science, it is a wild leap to
suggest that teaching science implies teaching humanism.  Plenty of
non-humanists favor science teaching.  But anything beyond a surface
look at the Creationism movement reveals it to be made up of Christian
fundamentalists who start with a dogmatic belief in Creation and then go
hunting for anything that supports their a priori belief and dismiss
anything that does not out of hand.  It has no place in a science
class.

>Now let's get this out of sci.research and back in talk.* where it
>belongs....
Right you are!
-- 
D Gary Grady
(919) 286-4296
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET:  dgary@ecsvax.bitnet
-- 
D Gary Grady
(919) 286-4296
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET:  dgary@ecsvax.bitnet