Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>>
>>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact
>>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason
>>and science from nonsense.
>
>   Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making
>the same mistake that creationists commonly do.  In this and previous posts,
>I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have
>consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when
>in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options.  Neither do the
>former, for that matter.
>
>   I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational"
>atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their
>often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism."
>
>  -- Dave

No, Dave, and as an anthropologist I take great umbrage with this 
misrepresentation.  I sense that it is you that has made the jump from creation
(science) to religion (see above).  I have characterized science/*creation 
science* as rationalism/nonsense, and that it is.  When people promote their 
religious beliefs as science they become nonsense.  Kept where they belong 
they are meaningful and useful, as virtually any anthropologists will tell you,
and as I have said several times in this group.  And it works the other way, 
too, and I have repeatedly said so.  Never have I said or meant anything 
different, here or elsewhere, and I don't think my communication skills betray
me.  Nor do I presume to offend people's spiritual sensibilities, as
I would hope others would not disparage mine.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
