[thechat] Prof refuses recommendation if you don't believe in evolution

[Ken Kogler]

> The problem with so-called "creation science" is that creationism is
> not, by definition, a theory, and therefore not within the boundaries
> of science. It CANNOT be supported or refuted by evidence because it
> is defined in the context of faith: belief without evidence. Refer to
> Doubting Thomas for an example. :)

Quite true. Which is why this whole durn thing is a moot point. :)

> So, I'm not sure whether this professor's litmus test is a good idea,
> but I also have a major problem with creationsists who attempt to
> pass their ideas off as just another theory on equal footing with
> evolution.

Well now, they're both reasonably logical explinations to anyone with an
open mind. I can understand how an atheist would reject a creationist's
theory, but why is everyone so ready to believe that all life slowly
evolved from a big puddle of goo? That's just as nuts to me...

> Oh, hi everyone. I've been a thelist subsriber for a few years,
> signed up here a few days ago, been lurking, thought I'd throw in my
> hat during a uniquely flammable debate. :D

This is nothing... Wait till someone mentions the Atkins diet. :)

*ducks*

--ken