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