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