Re: paleonet In his own words....

[Frank Holterhoff <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had the idea that most Creationists who use "science" to defend their 
views do so trying to disprove Evolution, rather than trying to prove 
Creation.  Maybe I haven't read enough of their material.

Either way, certainly some of them are disingenuous, although they may 
feel that the end justifies the means.  Others simply don't know very 
much about science and scientific method, and they just parrot what they 
hear coming from others in whose teaching they put great stock.

F

Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote:

> I found this quote by Duane Gish the other day.  I thought it was rather
> interesting........does this mean that most Creationists know that it isn't
> science and try to pass it off as such anyway? If this is true, then that
> would be extremely disingenuous.
> 
> "Creation is, of course, unproven and unprovable and thus cannot be
> considered as fact. It is not subject to test by the ordinary methods of
> experimental science-observation and falsification. It thus does not, in a
> strict sense, even qualify as a scientific theory"
> 
> From:
> "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record"
> 1986. Creation-Life Publishers. (Page 19)
> 
> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D
> Vice President, Institute for Creation Research (sic)
> 
> Lisa

-- 
Frank K. Holterhoff         MATRICuS Inc.
Physical Design Engineer    570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101
972-221-1614 ext. 18        Lewisville, Texas   75067
fax: 972-420-6895           USA
frank@matricus.com          www.matricus.com