Instead of using data to propose and test a variety of hypotheses,
creationist try to pigeon-hole all new data into an idea that Genesis is
the blueprint of creation. That is almost like science in reverse.
Every biologist knows that new data might show that neodarwinism might
be only half the solution....or even wrong. A creationist can not allow
creationism to be proved wrong---it is part of a religion, not a
science.
Thom
John K Clark wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "Jonathan Colvin" <jcolvin@ican.net> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 Wrote:
>
> >there are people who believe in Special Creation who are principled
> >and not stupid.
>
>
> Some creationists may not be stupid but their idea is ridiculous, it's
> probably wrong too.
>
>
> >there is room here for those who wish to believe in a creator to
> >find their niche.
>
>
> They're free to believe whatever they like and I'm free to believe
> creationists are silly and that you're giving them far more respect than they
> deserve. I agree that science does not have a very deep explanation for why
> there is something rather than nothing, but at least scientists are smart
> enough to recognize that limitation. I have contempt for creationists because
> they foolishly think they've tied up all the loose ends and have completely
> solved this very profound problem with one simple idea. "Existence exists
> because God exists" is certainly simple, it's downright retarded in fact,
> but a theory that complicates things and immediately rases an obvious
> question almost identical and every bit as profound as the one it claims to
> answer is not a theory at all, it's a joke.
>
> John K Clark johnkc@well.com
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.i
>
> iQCzAgUBNYs27303wfSpid95AQGh3gTwwi8NLPugnI4KcyWzYC/vE5pqNZp8fT1P
> iST2UfLzytwO/wyiR+ekSzFh/+Grb3sRHGB2h6Dc1nt13s2bXtTHko7q6Dl3Oypn
> FpoHFBp9kqGg5/w1NQeZh2KPDJVWXoJMgO10SMG47gxpkbaEubNsLJnh9jBPovq1
> 8M97NG71hNiZ/J70YJaltPEn48M2BJPjvZpR6pZs1m9nUmIF7XY=
> =l62s
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----