83977

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.origins:41030 talk.religion.misc:83977
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!purdue!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!news.nd.edu!lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu!scharle
From: [e-mail] (scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.athiesm,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Apr 93 12:11:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Rawlins) writes:
    ...
|>       I will agree that creation should not be taught as science 
|>       IF macroevolution is not taught as science.  However, if we are
|>       teaching the wildly speculative theories of macroevolution as
|>       an explanation of origins, then equal time should be given
|>       to creation.  Neither one qualifies as science.  Create a
|>       philosophy course: Call it "Origins".
    ...
|>              ==========================================================
|>             //  Bill Rawlins            <[e-mail]>        //
|>            //                          "I speak for myself only"   //
|>           ==========================================================

    Interesting idea.

    This suggestion has inspired me to post, under the title "Theories 
of Creation", a collection of various "philosophies" of creation that 
I am aware of.  Could you explain which of these theories you would
want taught, and which ones you would not?  Or, perhaps, I haven't
included a favorite theory of yours (if so, could you describe it for
me for inclusion in an updated list)?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |[e-mail]
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA