Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Dearest A Ray Miller
Message-ID: <208@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 19:19:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.208
Posted: Fri Feb 15 19:19:38 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:39:56 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 49

> 1) ICR is not, and never has been, a membership organization.  Hence, any
> discussion by the evolutionists of membership qualifications/characteristics
> is moot.

Membership or not, my position still stand upon the requirements for
getting on the "staff" of ICR.  (Don't waste your time trying to
correct any grammatical technicallities.  You are only missing the
point.)  To have to swear to believing in the absolute truth of the
Bible is an insult to the mind, especially in a scientific organization.
On this reason alone, the ICR cannot be considered as a scientific
organization.  (How many scientific organizations do you know that
forces its members ... excuse me ... staff to swear that something
holds the absolute truth?  If you can, please tell me how they
define truth.  In the off chance that you do try to get some names,
don't waste your time with Bible-research organizations such as the
ICR or the CRS.  If anything they are hoaxes to con the people into
believing in fundamentalist Christianity.)  I can give a lot of
reasons why Creationism is BS, but I will just given you the
basic problem below.  If Duane Gish and his clan does not give up
soon, either science will have to crush him, or the advancement
science will be greatly impeded.
___________________________________________________________________

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF CREATIONISM:

When it comes down to the foundation of creationism, it is the divine
creator that holds everything together.  Without that, the theory is
meaningless.  Now, how in the world does one go about proving the
existence of a creator (assuming that one is able to clearly define it
in the first place)?  What's more important, how does one go about
disproving the existence of a creator?  The answer is:  You can't!
A divine creator is supernatural; that is, it is beyond the norms of
nature in its characteristics and/or behavior.  It is impossible for
any of the natural sciences to explain it.  Therefore, to assume the
existence of a creator, which the creationists are doing (refer to
the membership requirements of the ICR and the CRS), is unjustifiable
in science.  Since one cannot assume it, one must prove it, being that
everything else sits upon that assertion.  Within science, that proof
is impossible.

[Reprinted from my first post.]
___________________________________________________________________

If you did not bother to read the insertion, I can understand it.
Hard-core creationists like you have a tough time reading anything
which they cannot misquote or otherwise exploit to support their
foolish opinions.

KEEBLER