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