Richard Dawkins and hypocrisy

Thomas Scharle scharle at ubiquity.cc.nd.edu
Wed Dec 18 15:22:31 EST 1996


This discussion really belongs in talk.origins, not any sci.* group.
Followups directed there.  Newsgroups trimmed and email sent.

In article <32B84AAC.351A at whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann <ehestermann at whoi.edu> writes:
|> Frank wrote:
|> (snip)
|> > Evolution is fact, not theory.  Creationism is belief, not fact.
|> 
|> Actually, last I checked both were theories.  One simply has a great
|> deal more scientific evidence to back it up.  Although I do believe the
|> other fares rather better in an encounter with Occam's razor...

    Sorry, no.  There is no theory called "creationism".  At least
no one has been able to find one.

    And there is a theory *of* evolution, much as there is a theory of
flight ... yet no one says that flight is not a fact, but a theory.

|> 
|> > Believing in the fact of evolution does not automatically indicate
|> > that one is an atheist.  Whether Dawkins is, or is not, an atheist has
|> > no bearing on his ability or right to enjoy or participate in
|> > religious services.  Virtually all christian organizations welcome
|> > participation regardless of belief.
|> 
|> Got this one dead on, IMO.  I didn't think Dawkins was this
|> popular/notorious.  The original post has occasioned a great deal of
|> reply, though.

-- 
Tom Scharle         scharle.1 at nd.edu       "standard disclaimer"



More information about the Bioforum mailing list