Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site we53.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!bmt From: bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Rules question Message-ID: <245@we53.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 13:37:01 EDT Article-I.D.: we53.245 Posted: Wed Oct 3 13:37:01 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 09:56:05 EDT References: uwmacc.317 <9652@brunix.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Technologies - St. Louis Missouri Lines: 22 >.........................What I'm *really* driving at is that just because >one hypothesizes a creator does not in any way allow one to make the >incredibly huge leap of then saying that said creator *is* the god of >the judeo-christian tradition. And without being able to make that >leap, creationism, at least as far as I can see, cannot say very much. > >But I'm interested in what the Creationists have to say. Fine, I grant >the existance (for the time being) of *some kind* of creator. Now what? Sorry I don't have the rules available to me, but the question seems one of science being able or not being able to rule out a [Cc]reator, and what that should lead us to. One point of clarification that I feel is needed is that we seem to be looking down the wrong end of the telescope here. What I mean, if my metaphor applies, is that the evolotionary theory arose out of an unqualified rejection of the idea of a creator, specifically *the* Creator of the Judeo-Christian teachings. The rejection stemmed from the logical conclusion that if He existed, then He had something to say about how I live My life, something that Darwin et al. had a personal problem with, as do the evolutionists of today.