Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability
Message-ID: <219@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 14:17:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.219
Posted: Wed Aug 22 14:17:15 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 03:07:46 EDT
References: <231@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 40


>[Ray Chen]
>This is worse than simply attacking evolution in order to justify creation.
>This is STUPIDITY of the highest order !!  If you want to attack an argument
>by bandying semantics, then head on over to net.philosophy where people are
>debating over "What is truth?", "When can we say we 'know' something?",
>"What can we 'know'?" and "Can we 'know' anything at all?"  The whole point
>behind (Dick Dunn's article, I believe) the article requesting information
>about scientific creationism was to get information and arguments that
>attempt to support creationism on its own merits, not by disproving other
>theories and saying "Well, we're all you've got left...".

Excuse me, please.  Perhaps I was not clear enough.

(i)	I was not replying to Dick Dunn.  The P.S. explicitly
	indicated that the article was not a response to his
	question.
(ii)	"Bandying semantics"?  Not at all.  Those on the side of
	evolution maintain creationist arguments to be absurd,
	illogical, founded upon speculation, etc.  That's your
	right.  But it is my right to point out that many of
	the pro-evolution arguments are subject to the same
	charges.  The reason I cited so many previous articles
	was to demonstrate this.  If you wish to object, then
	*refute the demonstration*, as that was the main thrust
	of my article.

	The objection beginning "what is truth" is a non sequitur.

>Nobody claims
>the evolution is absolutely correct or even partially correct.

That's certainly true.  Especially Messrs. Not-dogmatic-about-evolution,
Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan (for instance).  Give me a break.
-- 

Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist...
						Colossians 1:17