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