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.news.group,net.physics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Nay to net.origins
Message-ID: <131@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 11:41:19 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.131
Posted: Tue Dec 20 11:41:19 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Dec-83 05:37:17 EST
References: <2953@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <1268@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 21

Com'on Duruc!!

Why must evolution theory always criticized on the basis of
modern theorists finding "problems" with Darwin's views?
Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einsteins
theory and no one argues that all of physics was toppled like
a house of cards.  As far as I know, Newton's theory is still
adequate for all of NASA's navigational needs.

Darwin's theory is correct to the extent that man and chimpanzee 
shared a common ancestor.  Modern scientists (as opposed to "scientists")
may differ with Darwin in the details of the mutation and selection
process, but not on the *fundamental* question of common ancestry.

In so far as creation "science" is scientific, no evidence contradicts
the fundamental principles of Darwin's theory.  In so far as creation
"science" is "scientific" it is irrelevant.

                 Let's keep the 12th century out of the 20th,

                                              Jim