Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Response to the frontline
Message-ID: <106@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-May-85 21:55:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.106
Posted: Sat May 18 21:55:14 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 04:40:24 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 45


Paul DuBois :

>Unfortunately true.  (I am as guilty of this as anyone.)  Just an aside
>here:  if anyone has access to it, try to get hold of "Is Evolution
>Proved?", edited by Arnold Lunn.  (Hollis and Carter, London, 1947) It
>is in the form of a debate via correspondence, between Douglas Dewar
>and H S Shelton.  This book is particularly interesting in that it has
>a number of characteristics found in this newsgroup.  For example, the
>struggle to understand what the other side is saying, the stuggle to
>keep from misrepresenting the other point of view, the allegations that
>such-and-such is evidence for/against creation/evolution, the
>counter-allegations that it isn't...on and on.  The similarities are
>quite striking.

What struggle? Am I incorrect when I interpret Dan's argument from
design and Lief's appeal to emotion as being non scientific? How about
your own statement that you would sign the CRS doctrinal statement,
and the one where you claimed that it was an either/ or situation
when choosing between evolution and creationism? I pointed out quite
clearly that the latter was totally incorrect, and, non-scientific. There
has been no retraction of that blunder yet. If you cannot bring
yourself to face up to something so blatantly wrong why should
we believe that your professed sincerity is real, and that you are
genuinely interested in debate. Remember, actions speak louder than
words. I would prefer to see 10 lines of scientific reasoning defending
creationism rather than  500 lines professing sincerity, attacking
evolution, and claiming that both sides do misunderstand each other.

 If your intentions are as pure as you claim they
are, then why not address the "burning issue" of whether
creationism is science or not, and at the same time make a statement
acknowledging that it is not an either/or situation. This would
go much further in convincing me of your sincerity than anything else
you could do. I think that the failure to admit that it is not
an either/or situation stems directly from the immediate consequence
that such a concession would automatically force you to shift from
attacking evolution and try to defend creationism as science. If
I was in your shoes I probably would not relish the prospect either.
(See, evolutionists understand creationists. Now if we could only....)

Perhaps I have misunderstood your previous statements that I have
mentioned here. If so, correct me. Otherwise correct them.

Padraig Houlahan.