Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart
From: stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: A response to Mike Ward's survey
Message-ID: <199@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Sep-84 10:05:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.199
Posted: Wed Sep 12 10:05:16 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 20:53:26 EDT
References: <1142@hao.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 29

First, I am eligible to respond:  I do not believe that modern "scientific
creationism", is scientific.  Moreover, I do not believe that such
"scientific creation" is correct, irrespective of whether or not it is
scientific.  

Question 1:
	Yes, I would subscribe to net.origins even if there was no risk
	of "creation science" being mandated by law.  There are several
	reasons for this: first, I am very interested in scientific
	methodology, philosophy, and history; second, I am interested in
	the interaction of theology and science; and finally, I enjoy a
	good debate.

Question 2:
	Yes, see above.  In fact, I honestly believe that "scientific
	creationism" has a place in education.  For example, a legitimately
	scientific theory of creation was the precursor of our current
	theories of evolution.  Studying how evolution came to replace
	creationism as the dominate theory of origins is certainly worth-
	while, and would demystify much of how "actual" science is done.

	[Note here: I do not believe that modern "scientific creationism"
	is in any meaningful way the intellectual descendant of nineteenth
	century creationism.  Rather, it is the descendant of an
	anti-intellectual tradition within American protestant
	fundamentalism.]

Stu