Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
From: tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: replies on creation vs. evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <5538@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Feb-84 22:37:33 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5538
Posted: Sat Feb 11 22:37:33 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 04:45:35 EST
Lines: 51

#R:qubix:-81200:uiucuxc:3900045:000:2359
uiucuxc!tynor    Feb 11 10:16:00 1984

>   Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!{sun,decwrl}!qubix!lab /*

>   As has been worn to death in the past, John ties scientific
>   creation to religious beliefs. Once more, I make the point that
>   scientific creation has to stand on the merits of scientific
>   evidence, without stipulating that any particular religious
>   material is accurate. Although I am not aware of any creation
>   scientists who are not Christian, being a Christian is not a
>   prerequisite to being a creation scientist. The test is the
>   *evidence*.

I must disagree.  While it does not require belief in the Christian
God, it does require the existance of some sort of supernatural being,
or god. (Which, of course, we have *no* scientific evidence for...)

>   Another worn-to-death argument is that "divine intervention" could
>   account for anything. In the case for scientific creation, divine
>   intervention is limited to causing the earth to be in a given state
>   at a given time, then leaving intact a constant set of principles
>   by which the universe continues to operate. In a sense, "divine
>   intervention" is a misnomer. The creationist's point is that the
>   processes currently in operation are insufficient to account for
>   the world as it now is. Such a conclusion is not beyond the realm
>   of science; thus, creationists do not "automatically exclude
>   themselves for the realm of science." of coexistence dispel your
>   precious theories - would you?

Why does limiting divine intervention (or if you regard it as a 
misnomer, *magic*) to single event in history make it any easier
to digest as science?  We're still requiring that supernatural force
to explain the natural universe.

>   A paraphrase of Pat Wyant sums things up beautifully:  "Isn't it
>   interesting how the creationists and evolutionists see the same
>   data differently?" Exactly. The *same* data. Which model does it
>   fit better, with fewer secondary assumptions?

Which model does it fit better, with simpler secondary assumptions?
Why the evolution model, of course.  All the scientific model requires
is time.  The creationists insist on the supernatural.  Any naturalistic
explanation, no matter how complex, is *far* simpler than the creation
explanation.


	  Steve Tynor

	  ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
	  University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana