Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Rules question Message-ID: <1349@cvl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 09:23:03 EDT Article-I.D.: cvl.1349 Posted: Thu Sep 20 09:23:03 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 01:13:10 EDT Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland Lines: 62 > (i) A creationism model must be scientific and not religious. > (to make this point belabors what Dick Dunn and others have > been saying all along. I include it here for completeness.) > (ii) A creation model must, obviously, include a creator. But a > creator is a religious (or at the least, supernatural) > concept and therefore cannot be part of a scientific model. I am willing to drop (ii) but not (i). To require "scientific creationism" to be scientific seems fair to me. It is of course unreasonable to require that a creationist model not include a creator. > Well. I shall not dispute point (i), above. Clearly a religious > model will not convince the non-religious, or those who place a > higher value upon the truth to be derived from scientific inquiry > than that which might be derived on a religious basis. > However, I do feel that point (ii) is unreasonable, for the > reason given in the second quote from Larry. How can science, > which must be willing to consider the best explanation of natural > phenomena rule out, a priori, the possibility that natural > phenomena has a supernatural origin? Just as I must be willing > to consider models which are consistent with the assumption that > no creator was present, so must non-creationists be willing > to concede the possibility that models not based on that assumption > may be used to derive predictions regarding natural phenomena, > based on natural laws. I agree with you. (for a change) > I have not yet tried to formulate any description of a model based > on creation in this newsgroup. Several people have noticed that, > and have presented criticism based on that observation. Justified criticism in my view. The fact that evolution has a model (several actually) makes it easier to attack. The fact that creationism has no obvious model (Genesis, being a religious document, dosn't count) means that win or lose evolution can do no better than breaking even. > The reason I haven't given a model is that I do not > (yet) see that it is worth it. If any such attempt will be > ruled invalid by definition, what's the point? You are wasting your "breath" on those who rule out your position a priori anyway. It may not be worth it in terms of improving you arguing position but it would result in a fairer argument. > I'm still willing > to give one, and to demarcate what would be considered outside > of the realm of scientific inquiry (i.e., what the model could > not explain). My question is, shall I try? Please do. I have been waiting in vain for a concrete model for some time. Of course I will not hesitate to tear your model to ribbons if it has any weaknesses. Destroying models is one of the main jobs of a scientist. GET ON WITH IT! Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh