Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins Subject: Re: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (On Creationism and Religion) Message-ID: <1344@dciem.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 17:54:08 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1344 Posted: Fri Feb 1 17:54:08 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 21:46:09 EST References: <202@decwrl.UUCP> <528@mhuxt.UUCP> <239@ihu1m.UUCP> <322@cybvax0.UUCP> <945@ihuxn.UUCP> <331@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 47 Summary: >Haven't you heard of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) based in >San Diego? There are hundreds of Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists >who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone. >There is as much SCIENTIFIC evidence behind Creation theory as there is >the Evolutionary theory. Please don't make statements that are not based >on scientific facts such as: (Creationism is not science. It is religion.) >If you would like some names, facts, etc. I would be glad to furnish them >upon demand. > > Dan I guess none of them communicate with this net, then. What we see here is a mixture of pseudo-science, fable, and falsehood masquerading as scientific creationism. Creationism may not be religion, but it seems to be linked with some kind of mental pathology that causes very selective vision when it comes to evidence from the whole breadth of scientific observation. I doubt there is anyone reading this wierd and wonderful newsgroup who has NOT heard of the ICR, but the few hundred (are there really?) "Biologists, Chemists, and Physicists who believe in creation science on the basis of scientific evidence alone" hardly provide evidence of the scientific credibility of the enterprise. After all, when you try to overturn an enormously wide interlinked mesh of evidence and theory, you have to supply a satisfactory counter- theory for ALL of it, not just one tiny bit like whether species evolve or were created more-or-less as they are now. You must account for the facts of high-energy physics and astrophysics, sociology and botany, geology and chemistry .... Your creation "science" fails utterly to do this. All we EVER hear from creation "scientists" is `evolution cannot account for this "fact" or that.' Half the time the "facts" are false, half the time there is no problem accounting for them within "normal" science, and a microscopic proportion of the time (haven't seen one yet) a serious problem is illuminated. But never have I seen on this net a POSITIVE argument supporting creation science. Normal science is full of discarded theories, theories that looked good and were accepted by everyone. They were not discarded without a fight, but they were discarded finally when there was both a new theory and evidence that indicated the superiority of the new theory. People like to hold onto their old ideas, which is why creationists still exist, over a century after better theories were developed. But let's not keep pretending that creation science exists, without giving evidence IN FAVOUR OF CREATIONISM. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt