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!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: about origins... Message-ID: <176@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 10:41:15 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.176 Posted: Sun Jun 2 10:41:15 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 04:28:21 EDT References: <246@ihdev.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 58 Occasionally it helps to get an article like this one to remind ourselves what the discussion is really all about. Actually I agree with Ron Vaughn that no one's mind is likely to be changed in all of this, but that does not mean the discussion is pointless. I personally have found it very useful in that I now know a lot more about the Creationist point of view and arguments. Since I teach astronomy, and the question of Creationism sometimes comes up, I am now much better prepared to give an adequate response to my students than I was. However, I think Ron misses an essential point when he says: > ron vaughn's advice for creationist: > > let's face it, you can read the bible to them every day, teach them > about christianity until you think they truly believe, but if you > show them the scriptures and they dispute it, what can you do? > you say "god created the earth, look, look right here.." and they > say "no, no, you can't take that literally" and poooof! your beliefs > mean NOTHING to them. if you don't have cold hard evidence, your > ideas are not even submitted for speculation. and it can't be > wishy-washy evidence, remember most scientist are NOT on your side. > you can't prove creationism or existence of jesus or.... anything if > the person doesn't first believe in the bible, god etc. you have to > start there first. you're treating the symptoms, not the problem. > scientific evidence for the creationism camp is far less than that > for the evolution camp. if you make christians out of them first, > THEN (and most likely ONLY then) you can show them you are right. > It is true that there has been quite a bit of Bible-thumping here recently, but the main thrust of the Creationist argument since the formation of net.origins has been quite different: that Creationism is just as "scientific" and independent of the Bible as evolutionism is. Much of the effort of individuals such as Paul Dubois, Paul Dubuc, Ray Miller, and Ron Kukuk, for example, has been expended, however unsuccessfully, towards this end. For tactical reasons, I suspect, the Creationists have generally been reluctant to admit that their "science" is actually religion, no matter how obvious it may seem to those of us on the outside. If Creationists would only admit what Ron sees clearly, that Creationism is nothing but religion in disguise, I think we could all go home, since the real point of Creationism is to get it taught in the public schools, and, as the courts have made abundantly clear, religion cannot be taught there. I think that Ron exaggerates the amount of flaming on this group. We do have our share on both sides, of course, but I have found net.origins, on the whole, to be quite civilized. I have a lot of respect for my Creationist friends out there in netland. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)