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