Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!dan From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Out-of-Context Quote-of-the-Month. July 1985. Message-ID: <373@scgvaxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 21:50:54 EDT Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.373 Posted: Mon Aug 5 21:50:54 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 01:14:46 EDT References: <1296@uwmacc.UUCP> <1310@uwmacc.UUCP> <198@kitty.UUCP> Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Distribution: net Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA Lines: 26 In article <198@kitty.UUCP> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: >> Comment: >> >> Dobzhansky falls into the error of supposing that he knows what a >> creator would do, in asking what the good of having 2 or 3 million >> species is. How does he know? We cannot say one way or the other, >> without some form of revelation, which, I think, Dobzhansky would not >> claim to be party to. > >And since we don't know what a creator would do, creationism cannot predict >anything except through the sort of second-guessing you're reviling. Thus >creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can believe in it if you want, >but don't presume to call it science. We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. Example: We can observe that the creator created man with a potential for variation in characteristics. (height, weight, eye color, skin etc.) However, the genetic menu is limited. Man has never given birth to an ape. (Observation) Prediction: No genetic potential for producing an ape. This is verified in studies of genetics. Since man does not have the genetic potential for producing an ape offspring, this could offer evidence that man and ape are genetically unrelated and separate creations. Dan