Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Scientific Method
Message-ID: <2482@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-May-84 19:31:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2482
Posted: Sun May 20 19:31:55 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 05:59:56 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 16

> Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation."
> This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model
> SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented.

Creationism is not a scientific  theory,  since  it  is  not
based  on  scientific  evidence.   It  may be *supported* by
scientific evidence (though I haven't seen this),  but  it's
*based* on Genesis.

If you are going to call something a science, then you can't
ignore  scientific  method.   The point is, it matters *how*
you reach your conclusions.
-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories