Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: creation/evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <1782@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 08:28:41 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.1782
Posted: Fri Feb 17 08:28:41 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 04:40:48 EST
References: <5567@uiucdcs.UUCP>, <6760@unc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 16



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?

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.

:-)

Paul Dubuc