Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rch From: rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Rules question Message-ID: <9652@brunix.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 03:25:43 EDT Article-I.D.: brunix.9652 Posted: Sun Sep 23 03:25:43 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 05:12:21 EDT References: uwmacc.317 Lines: 19 The idea that science cannot absolutely rule out a creator is a valid one. But remember, rule I still applies. If I concede for the purpose of discussion the existance of a creator, well ok fine. But then what? It might be a not-entirely-unreasonable hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint to say that life was generated by a creator, but where do you go from there? What can you say about such a creator? How was it done? What useful information do we gain? What predictions can we make to test such a hypothesis? 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? What is step 2 in your theory? Rich Yampell