From: Huxter4441@aol.com <Huxter4441@aol.com>
>In a message dated 12/22/00 10:20:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, Sjones
>writes:
>
>
>> > And what was a *scientist* doing "destroying the `dogma' of creation"?
>> All
>> > Darwin needed to do was present the evidence of his findings together
>> with
>> > a scientific hypothesis no greater than sufficient to account for the
>> > observed facts.
Since creationism is religiously motivated pseudoscience, of course one
expects a good scientist to want to overthrow it.
Perhaps Darwin would have considered creationism to be merely an incorrect
theory, not pseudoscience, since the evidence against it was not as clear as
it is today. He would still have had good reason to want to overthrow it,
just as any scientist would want to overthrow an incorrect theory.
Stephen is talking nonsense as usual.
>Funny, I didn't see Steve so up in arms when it was shown that one of his
>latest heroes - Jon Wells - stated explicitly that he was out to 'destroy
>Darwinism'....
Good point, though there's a very significant difference between these two
cases. Wells set out to destroy Darwinism (because he was told to do so by
his guru) *before* getting his education in biology. Darwin, on the other
hand, set out to collect biological evidence, and, as a result, of what he
found, realized that creationism was false.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 27 2000 - 08:19:35 EST