Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: creation/evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <1728@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 02:39:26 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1728 Posted: Sat Feb 18 02:39:26 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 02:49:23 EST References: <5567@uiucdcs.UUCP>, <6760@unc.UUCP> <1782@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 32 > I still have trouble with the "slippery slope" nature of the arguments > against compact intervention. The point still remains that allowing for > the possibility of divine intervention does not *demand* that we distrust > scientific evidence. How do we know the creator is whimsical or deceptive? How do we know that he, she, or it isn't? Admitting that something magical happened once means that, unless you have *convincing* evidence to the contrary, one must assume it can happen again. > The "problem" with compact intervention (I think) is that in order for us > to be able to work with it we have to go beyond science. We have to > attempt a study of the nature of the Creator himself. My gosh! That > would mean science would have to acknowledge theology as an important > area of study, a valid intellectual persuit! How terrible. It's a valid intellectual pursuit in the same way philosophy and mathematics are. It is not, however, science; neither are philosophy nor mathematics. If such interventions are purely guided by the will of a creator which is not subject to any natural laws, there's no way to make predictions about the creator's behavior and hence no way to test hypotheses about rules governing its behavior. Note, however, that the existence of compact intervention in no way indicates that a creator or creators is a "he" or "she" or anything we'd consider similar to the Judaeo-Christian deity, so it may be that the creator's behavior is purely random and the unsophisticated gambler the ideal theologician. Any creationist upset by this proposition should re-examine their "scientific creationist" credentials; it is certainly as philosophically valid a hypothesis on the nature of the creator as any other. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy