Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Rules question
Message-ID: <813@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 21:54:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.813
Posted: Mon Sep 17 21:54:30 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:30:53 EDT
References: <292@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 24

> The statement "God created" clearly may be interpreted in a
> religious manner.  Is it allowed as a starting point?  That is,
> is it scientifically acceptable to the evolutionists on the net
> to postulate a Creator, and then make predictions using naturalistic
> processes on the basis of that postulate?  Or is that, too, a
> religious statement, and therefore disallowed?

What are we discussing, Paul?  Some while back there was an attempt (mine)
to get some info on "scientific creationism"--specifically as opposed to
"religious creationism".  Clearly, "God created" isn't a valid starting
point for that sub-discussion; you can't get much closer to "religious
creationism" than starting with "God created".  Similarly, if you ask if
it's "scientifically acceptable" to say that, the answer is "no"--unless
you have a Creator which is limited to naturalistic processes, in which
case I'll bow out here because I don't understand your concept.

> If it is disallowed, how about, then, if I postulate, say, "it
> just came out of nothing"?  Is that religious, and disallowed?

That's not (inherently/obviously) religious, but it's not a good postulate.
"It just came" presupposes a lot.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.