Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site gitpyr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!tynor
From: tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: No time
Message-ID: <233@gitpyr.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 15:21:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.233
Posted: Sat Sep 22 15:21:26 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 07:40:59 EDT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 40

Paul DuBois:

> 
> I have a question, the purpose of which is to see where
> evolutionists on the net stand in regard to what I am
> allowed as a basis for asserting a creationist viewpoint.
> 
> 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?

It's probably a religious statement that should not be allowed.  I
say probably, because it's possible (I'm giving you every benifit of
the doubt) that when you aren't so foolish as too suppose that
science can accept the notion of a supernatural Creator.  Such a
creator would be capable of *anything*, and therfore not bound by
the naturalistic processes that you wish to impose (which a
scientist *must* impose on anything). 

It is no good to argue that evolution is full of holes and not
provide an acceptable alternative.  Divine creation can never be
considered scientific because it relies (even if only for the
initial creation) on supernatural intervention into the natural
world.

Let us suppose that your
Creator is not a supernatural one, but mearly some sort of highly
advanced 'alien' who decided to create the earth and it's fauna and
flora.  Do you have scientific evidence that such a being exists? If
so, then your statement should not be dissallowed.  If you merely
wish to assume that such a being exists (a fact which the rest of us
must take on faith...) then I see no reason why your argument should
be considered scientific.

	    Steve Tynor
		Georgia Institute of Technology
		ihnp4!gatech!gitpyr!tynor