From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:09:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan16.021728.18829@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
}mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >
}madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >|>
}>|> You miss the point.  Christians insist on teaching Creationism as
}>|> science, get good science curricula banned because this would lead
}>|> to children questioning their faith, and so on.  To be a good
}>|> scientist, a person must know how to use logic, how to see through
}>|> assumptions, and ought to question everything.  Needless to say,
}>|> this is in opposition to Christianity.
}>|> 
}>As for Creationism, you can't disprove it.  

And, I might insert, EXACTLY!  You catch on to a crutial point.

}I can't disprove that the world was created yesterday and we all
}have false memories either, but it's a bit unlikely given the
}evidence.
}
}>So, as a logical scientist, you can't dismiss it either. 

No, precisely BECAUSE it is untestable is why, as a logical 
scientist, you can dismiss it.

}It is absolutely impossible to accept the theory of Literal
}Creationism without dismissing almost every branch of science,
}INCLUDING Computer Science.  You see, evolution has been shown
}in software viruses.  It's a very consistent model.
}
}>Evolution is only a theory.  
}
}Turn off the tape recorder and think, Malcolm.  Do you know what
}a theory is?  Can you give me a definition?  Can you define the
}Scientific Method?
}
}I don't think you know diddly-squat about science, because I bet
}you can't answer any of these questions.
}
}>If it had been 
}>proven true, it would no longer be a theory.  
}
}I can't help it, I'm laughing too hard.  Since you don't know
}about the Scientific Method, I will tell you.  First of all,
}Science cannot prove anything!  That's right!  All it can do
}is disprove things.
}
}Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact.  It has been
}observed, it has been duplicated in the laboratory, and the
}evidence is astoundingly consistent.
}
}On the other hand, there are huge amounts of problems with
}the theory of Creationism.  The biggest problem is that there
}is no T.O.C.  Oh yes, there's the Biblical story of Genesis,
}but that's not a theory.  Remember, you don't know what a
}theory is, because you're not a logical scientist.
}
}On talk.origins, the newsgroup for the discussion of Earth and
}Universe history and creation, there has been a continual
}request for the Creationists to post a "Theory of Scientific
}Creationism."  And we've never seen one.

And I've been asking and looking.  For years.

}You see, I have no problem with the Genesis story as a religious
}doctrine.  But it is not science, and for you to claim it is
}shows that you don't know what science is.
}
}So, can you state the Theory of Creationism, in scientific
}terms, formulate your hypothesis, show me the evidence for it,
}and explain all the evidence against it?  I say you can't do it.

Remember the "testable" part.  Unfortunately, you've already discarded
this by saying  "you can't disprove it".  Too bad.

}>I don't agree with banning
}>any science curricula.  I think that children should be allowed to make
}>their own decisions.  And I am a Christian too.
}
}Well, the problem is that you're mixing science and religion.
}How would you like it if your kids were taught the Norse Creation
}Theory in science class.  The Vedic Creation Theory?  You see the
}can of worms you're opening?

How about xenobiology in sunday school?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish