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.