Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Let's have scientific evolutionism too
Message-ID: <697@opus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 21:06:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.697
Posted: Wed Aug 15 21:06:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 01:25:58 EDT
References: <3388@cbscc.UUCP> <7518@unc.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 26

Brian Howes:
> Paul Dubuc begs Dick Dunn's question in a very novel manner.   Dunn asks
> for some concise but complete statement of scientific creationism which
> stands on its own and does not depend upon an attack on evolutionary
> theory.  Dubuc responds by asking that the proponents of evolutionary
> theory be held to the same standard.
> 
> So far so good.  Dubuc, however, goes on to complain...
>...
>...A fair point, perhaps,
>but it is not a meaningful response to Dick Dunn's question.

In fact, although Paul's article does pose some interesting questions,
Brian is right (though too kind):  Dubuc's reply is not only NOT a
meaningful response to my request (for information on scientific
creationism) but actually dodges it in the same way that creationists so
often do--by counterattacking against evolutionism!  What I'm interested
in, and WHAT I SAID I WAS INTERESTED IN, was some brief exposition of the
tenets of scientific creationism.  Picking at evolutionism doesn't have a
damn thing to do with what I asked.

Sorry if I seem overly testy, but I'm not much swayed by "changing the
subject" as a technique in meaningful discussion.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.