Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hou2g!stekas
From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: creation vs. evolution
Message-ID: <126@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 10:15:47 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.126
Posted: Thu Dec  8 10:15:47 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Dec-83 01:29:54 EST
References: <315@sask.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 13

NO! Net.physics is not the place for discussing "scientific creationism",
although I have no objection to a discussion of problems with evolutionary
theory, accuracy of dating fossils, etc.  We don't saturate net.religion
with claims that physics is a religion and we expect the same courtesy.

The whole concept of "scientific creationism" was conceived solely
for the purpose of teaching religion in public schools.  It is no more
than religion mascarading as science, a semantic gimmick concieved
to sneak the teaching of religion into the public schools. Just
because an unforunate few have bought this snake oil doesn't mean we
have to let them pour it down our throats whenever they feel like it.

                                             Jim