Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Survey: Why this
Message-ID: <1041@shark.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 00:42:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.1041
Posted: Tue Sep 18 00:42:32 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 09:01:54 EDT
References: <1142@hao.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 31

"I do not beleive that Creationism is science, and my response
to your questions is: ... "

xy    1.  Would you bother reading this newsgroup (net.origins) if there
xy        were not the threat that the teaching of creationism as science
xy        in our schools would be mandated by law?

Yes.  It is interesting.  It makes one think.  (one hopes, that is!)
It helps to clarify what a science is.


xy    2.  Would you consider creation science a topic worthy of discussion
xy        if it were not for the threat that the teaching of creationism
xy        as science in our schoold would be mandated by law?

Yes.  It is always good to discuss various ideas on a given subject.
I also believe that being "another idea" does not give an idea
equal "scientific validity", though:

	I am another person, so I should get rights, too.
	I have an opinion, so I should be allowed to express it, too.
don't add up to
	My ideas should be taught as science, too.

Things taught as "science" should meet the requirements of what 
science is.  And what science IS should be taught in school.

(creation is a good topic, because Psychology and History 
are always good subjects.  :-)

Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp