Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the
Message-ID: <7800539@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 22:19:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800539
Posted: Mon Oct 14 22:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 08:23:11 EDT
References: <12288@rochester.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:rochester:-1228800:inmet:7800539:000:1364
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 14 22:19:00 1985


> [ray@rochester]
> /* ---------- "Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in th" ---------- */
> 
> > Mr. Barry forgot to add that creationism is *NOT* information. It's not even
> > science. It's an unprovable idea.
> > 
> > 				Chris Young.
> 
> Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven.
> But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence
> of black holes.  It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can
> ever be proven.  What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance
> of what might be black holes.  To draw parallels, what we observe in nature
> is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation-
> ism.
> 
> I rest my case.

Your argument is a play on words. It reminds me  of  someone  who
claimed  not  to  be  antisemitic  because he had nothing against
Arabs.  The creationism under discussion, as opposed  to  evolu-
tionism, does not consist in  the assertion that the Universe was
created by a deity (which is the view you are defending) , but in
the   assertion   that  all existing  forms of life  were created
directly   and   separately,  rather  than   evolved  from  other
forms of life. The two have, logically, nothing  in  common;  the
second  one  is  not  just  unprovable:  it  has  been thoroughly
disproved.

		Jan Wasilewsky