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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Ethics 'n Stuff
Message-ID: <555@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 14:38:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.555
Posted: Tue Apr 23 14:38:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 01:10:25 EST
References: <945@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 27

[.................]
>Aren't you saying, in effect, that if the creationist wishes to attack
>evolution, he must not only "debunk" gradualism, he must also educate
>the general public as to all the alternative theories, and then debunk
>them?  It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of
>information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests
>squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist.  Don't you agree?  I DO
>NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about YOUR
>theories.
>
No, if the creationist wishes to attack evolution, he must educate
the scientific community as to his 'better' alternative theory.
Science in general dosen't give a flying *** what the general public 
thinks.  Scientists tell the general public what the SCIENTISTS think.
They do not ask the non-scientist general public what it thinks about
theories (you don't ask a non-expert for expert testimony).  Science DOES
NOT accept the responsibility to educate the public about alternative
theories.  Creationists are trying to sell their view to the public,
as the scientists won't buy it.  Scientists don't feel it neccessary
to confuse the public by presenting conflicting theories for the
public to decide the validity of.  Scientists decide among themselves
what they think is valid, and only dissmeinate information regarding
what they think that is. 

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd