> That's all well and good, IF (and *only* if) it's presented in context, in
> a sociology or history or comparative religion class.  Creationism just is
> *not* science, no matter how you want to look at it.  If you want to try
> and argue that it *is* science, then you need to change the very
> definition of science.
>
> Regards,
> Suzanne White

Speaking from the palaeo point of view, I couldn't agree
with you more.

L.
----------------------
Lyall I. Anderson
(Rhynie Research Group)
Dept. of Geology & Petroleum Geology
Meston Building
University of Aberdeen, ABERDEEN
AB24 3UE

Tel: (01224) 273450

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geology/profiles/palaeo/palover.htm

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).