Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (On Creationism and Religion)
Message-ID: <296@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 20:24:57 EST
Article-I.D.: iham1.296
Posted: Fri Feb  1 20:24:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 15:03:25 EST
References: <202@decwrl.UUCP> <528@mhuxt.UUCP> <239@ihu1m.UUCP> <322@cybvax0.UUCP> <945@ihuxn.UUCP> <331@cybvax0.UUCP> <259@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.religion:5469 net.origins:698



   In response to an overly strong statement about the classification of
 creationism, a comment arrived:

 From ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan Wed Dec 31 18:00:00 1969 (!!)

 > 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.)


   The ICR is an organization of approximately 800 individuals who subscribe to
 and support special creationism (i.e., cosmogenesis as literally interpreted
 from the Bible).  One of the requirements for entry into this organization is
 an advanced degree in science.  In fact, there are no physicists in this
 organization, a few inactive biologists and chemists, with the overwhelming
 majority of the members holding master's degrees or better in engineering.  The
 constitution of the ICR has been discussed many times before in this newsgroup,
 and will undoubtedly be discussed many times again in the future.

   Furthermore, I am prepared to dispute the claim that *hundreds* of people in
 science believe in creation science on the basis of the evidence alone.  The
 number of individuals with advanced training in science, not engineering, who
 hold with special creationism is no more than one hundred.  Also, fight the
 tendency to ascribe any criticism of Darwin's mechanisms for evolution as a
 vote for creationism.

   Since my background is in physics, I can personally dispute only those topics
 where creationism impinges on my speciality.  About two months ago, several
 contributors, including myself, brought out topics from creationism which
 either violated the accepted facts or common understanding from physics,
 chemistry, and astronomy (areas ancillary to the creationism-evolution debate).
 Where specific predictions are possible, creationism either agrees with
 mainstream science or violates experimental and observational data in these
 areas.  There is almost no support for creationism in physics.

   The summary statement that *creationism is religion* is made in agreement
 with rulings by two federal judges, one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana.  At
 least for Arkansas, the suit against the state's Balanced Treatment Act was
 brought by the ACLU on behalf of 15 religious and civic leaders in the state,
 and was not an attempt by mainstream scientists to protect their turf.

   One of the objectives for this newsgroup was to establish the arguments for
 and against creationism.  The assertion that there is *...much scientific
 evidence behind creation theory ...* is exactly the basis of this debate, and
 has yet to be substantiated in my humble opinion.

-- 

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                                    *!iham1!gjphw