Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science? Message-ID: <667@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 17:32:43 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.667 Posted: Wed Feb 1 17:32:43 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 22:52:40 EST References: <870@ihuxl.UUCP> Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 32 ======================== > Now there are two possible conditions: (1) The creator did > a good job, so that the initial conditions appear compatible > with the laws that science may eventually discover; Perhaps if the creator had been aware that you require him to make the initial conditions compatible with the laws that science may eventually discover in order for you do say that he "did a good job", he might have done things differently *just to make you happy*. Give me a break, huh? It is not the creator's task to do things that are consistant with science, it is science's task to figure out what the creator created. If a scientist makes a bad guess, it is *not* the creator's job to change everything so as to make the scientist's bad guess into the 'truth', it is the scientist's task to figure out that he has made a bad guess and revise his/her guess. -- _____ /_____\ from the flying doghouse of /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert ======================== That's exactly the point I was making, if you read the rest of the article. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt