From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:50:13 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <62vd03lH59mh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>
>> [...]

>>> Attempting to force a religious viewpoint (creationism) to be taught
>>> as scientific fact is incorrect, and believing that this is a proper
>>> practice of the Christian faith is, I believe, incorrect as well.

>> If I have communicated in some way that I am forcing creationism to
>> be taught as scientific fact then I must apologize for not communicating
>> properly.

>Note the first word, "Attempting", in Mr. Acker's post. Your response
>doesn't address whether or not you are *attempting* to force etc. etc.

Since James was replying to one of my articles, I inferred he was
speaking about, and to, me. Having not inserted "attempting" in my
response to him didn't seem appropriate, but I could be wrong. I am
not attempting to force anything on anybody, and anything I write in 
t.o is merely my opinion. If I wanted the opinion of someone else,
I'd give it to them. :-) By the way, I'm not attempting to joke, that
was most definitely a joke.

>Which brings us right back to a question I asked you some time ago
>(on three separate occasions in June), namely whether or not you
>believe that the teaching of a `scientific' creation theory in school
>science classes should be legally mandatory.

Science should be taught in science class, but exactly, what is
a comprehensive definition of science and what you can teach in
school? From reading t.o, one would get the impression that 
creationists never "do" science. I must and do disagree with this
statement most vehemently. The "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal"
published in Australia and available through the ICR contains 
articles of creation science, and the research performed. Now, 
anyone can claim they aren't "doing" science, but making such a 
claim in no way takes away from the fact that they are "doing"
science.

>The only answer you would give back then was

>> I haven't changed my mind at all.

I still haven't.

>but you declined to say from what position you hadn't changed it.

It seems to me as time passes, we get further and further away from
God in just about everything. Last weekend I had a spare ten minutes
while I ate lunch and turned on the TV. I couldn't find much to 
watch but ended up watching one of those Father Flanagan Boys Town
movies with Mickey Roonie. I don't know when that movie was filmed,
(in the 40s?), but it reminded me how different "religion" was
perceived at that time. As time continues, it seems as though God
is cut out of more and more, including science and the classroom

>The other question you declined to answer was "If so, which one?", which
>seemed topical in the light of your acknowledged inability to produce
>an exposition of any such `scientific' creation theory.

My "inability" to produce a theory for special creation was due to
the fact of the enormous amount of time and energy it would take
starting from scratch, as I was doing. 

>How about it this time, Jim?

Exactly what is it you're looking for?

>Cheers

Back at ya.

>Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks