Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:01:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
737 times
|
| |
|
|
Jennifer Clark writes (with snips of some excellent points):
> The only thing that is credible, other than perhaps my conclusion that you
> have got to be winding me up about all this, is that "Dr Dino" has been
> kissing the blarney stone in a big way. For example, on the "win a great deal
> of cash" section, he says:
>
> "Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
> "2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets
> around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)"
>
> Wrong. I'm a better cosmeticist than cosmologist, but even I know that gravity
> and other fundamental forces (chemical, nuclear, subatomic) are generally taught
> as being part of the process responsible for the above. Referring to this as
> cosmic evolution is sophistry; the term evolution can be applied to any
> changing, directed process - for example, "The Evolution of Lego as a Creative
> Medium in the 20th Century". Saying so does not mean that Lego Marketing
> Strategies are taught in schools under the banner of Evolution.
A great point--I wish I'd made it. One might as readily include the
Evolution of Dave Schuler! from infant to (supposed) adult as a forbidden
topic. (Or, more seriously, the evolution of a text through +/- 2000 years
of translation, copying, revision, and editing.)
> Need I say more?
Please! You're making good points with better precision than many among
us, so say as much more as you care to.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
