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.