Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Tones on Tails
Message-ID: <384@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 15:09:27 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.384
Posted: Mon Jan 28 15:09:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 14:37:20 EST
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 49

[...............]
In response to my original 'Tones on Tails' article:

>                         .....I'd like to comment on the rest of the
>article briefly. If you'll remember it tried to tie creationism with
>religion. This seems an unfair way to address an issue considering that
>quite a bit of creationism material is devoid of any trace of religion.
>Many of the better papers deal with fitting evidence today with
>creationism precepts and are done so quite professionally. If an
>individual wishes to use biblical quotes to confirm the theory to himself
>or other believers in the bible, I see nothing wrong with that.

>			Mike Johnston


COME ON!  Most if not ALL of the major proponents of creationism
are directly tied with fundamentalist religious organizations.
The Institute for Creation Research that harbours all our friends Morris,
Gish, and their clan, is financed primarily by church money!  In addition,
'scientific' creationism would seem to assume belief in a *deity* of some
sort, as it proposes that such a *deity* exists and 'created' it all at
some point (again note that this by itself is not in conflict with 
evolution, creationists make further points that it was all created more
recently {so it agrees with the bible I expect} that the evolutionists
estimate, and other such secondary points). 

Have you ever met either an atheist or agnostic who is a creationist?
I would think they are mutually exclusive.

It's fairly obvious that most mainstream scientists find the creationist
rhetoric so preposterous that it dosen't even deserve much more than
casual notice, and/or mild amusement.  Unfortunately, it is not these
scientists that decide what our child's schoolbooks should read, but 
here actually, the creationists may be doing themselves more harm that
good.  Many of the fundamentalist organizations like the ones financing
the Institute for Creation Research have independently proclaimed that
they want more control over the school environment.  Some have even gone
so far as to proclaim that they want to teach children 'what to think'
instead of 'how to think'.  Fortunately, the effect of legislation in some
states to give evolution and creation 'equal time' has had the effect of
removing EITHER teaching from the textbooks, inspiring teachers to teach
the children 'how to think' as they have removed any 'what to think'
out of the books entirely.  This may actually be better in the long run
as they may be better at making decisions for themselves.

Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"