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: <666@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 17:20:54 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.666
Posted: Wed Feb  1 17:20:54 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 22:51:32 EST
References: <1577@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 22

================
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this compact intervention idea is
actually correct.  Should we then still prefer our naturalistic explainations
because those are the ones we can grasp?  Isn't this like prefering to look
in the kitchen for the nickel we lost in the basement because there's light
in the kitchen?

Paul Dubuc
================
Isn't that backwards? Surely Paul meant to say "Should we prefer our
deistic explanations because those are the ones we can grasp."
Naturalistic explanations (hard science) are much harder to grasp than
the idea that somebody just came along and made all this and that's
all there is to it folks.

The point is that compact intervention can ALWAYS account for any data.
Therefore it is much too easy just to say "OK, God did it. Let's stop
looking for the why and wherefore."
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt