@@> On Mar-28-98 Fredric Rice wrote to David Martorana on
 @@> "Creationist occultism"
 
 DM>> It is most difficult to understand those that must force all the
 DM>> edges of EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM to be mutually exclusive --
 DM>> as in "scientific terms", we are still examining those edges,
 DM>> however much taking sides.
 
 fr> One's science and the other is religion.  Theoretically they're
 fr> not in conflict with each other.  Unfortunately the Creationist
 fr> cult seeks to impose their religious belief that Creationism is
 fr> scientific and they seek to equate their occultism with science
 fr> in the public schools.
 
 fr> This is unfortunate since it degrades science and blasphemies
 fr> their own deity constructs.
 
  Nonsense! It does not degrade science, it adds a bit of pepper.
   ConTension is good; and "God Creationism" does goad
  the more scientific to work harder to get it right. The scientific
  community CAN become a bit arrogant and self satisfied.
  AND!!! there is a chance, however "micro", that they (Occulties) are
  "some" right! Having a dominant gorilla of chrome plated evidence on
  your side does NOT guarantee your rightness! It just guarantees that
  you have a heavy gorilla on your side (and ??? he might change sides
  at any time). The """game""" of "KNOWING" is still young and different
  teams might come out on top.  It is MY own belief that neither the
  "occulties" nor the "sciencies" are going to stand in the winner's
  circle. Whereas you have it all packaged (as I did when I was 18),
  I struggle with unsimple inquiries as to the many awkward relationships
  that can exist between information and knowledge, an area I see as most
  clear to those knowing the least.
       As to "blasphemies": depending on how our future will toy with
  time, the Fundamentalists are (without most of them realizing it)
  learning to define the God they want/need and might eventually in
  future have-(possible to even negotiate and contract science to make
  it so).  The new God would forgive all the blasphemies, and announce
  that He is actually the old God (been there all along!) as then to be
  now newly dressed and presented by science. THEN!!! there be those
  who will still say  "there is no God"; (me to, maybe!) and some of
  them will still be right (with new and improved dictionaries)! All that
  seems relative now will become more so as we get smarter.
       In monitoring your postings, one might get the notion that you
  speak as if informed directly by the angels (several on this ECHO are
  also so kept up to date). If so, I would defer to the heavies! My
  attitude-experience, right or wrong, has been to distrust "finalized
  idea mechanisms" whether *notioned* from science or religion. Any
  (important) tRUTHies we might eventually come to know will likely be
  far distant from both religion and science (and that lovable orphan
  cousin in between- ....... Phil Osophy).
 
   One day we die and some of our
   nonsense concerns might even end
   up on an old file on an old unreadable disk........ @@ ... Dave
 
  NOTE: Fundamentalists, however few, tend to evoke from others,
  enormous outpourings of wasted intellectual effort. *Many* fine words
  (about 70% on PHIL) would never be posted without their outrageous
  goading "pin pricks". Though I neither understand nor dispute with
  them, if they (animated cyber targets) were to disappear, they would
  have to be quickly reinvented......!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------