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