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: The Probability of Life from Non-life Message-ID: <1729@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 02:57:58 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1729 Posted: Sat Feb 18 02:57:58 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 02:49:51 EST References: <1582@cbscc.UUCP>, <118@utastro.UUCP> <1786@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 31 > Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and > search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed > to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance > to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude > the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior > and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with > the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while > one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind > it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as > to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? > Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified > and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? We jump here from "creator" to "God", which by the passing mention with no clarification I read as "the traditional Judaeo-Christian God". There *is* a difference between saying "we didn't get here via abiogenesis and evolution" and "the God of the Old Testament did it". I also don't see that the presupposition of "we got here via abiogenesis and evolution" as being "atheistic"; lots of people who believe in that God support that presupposition. When are those who do research to support theistic conclusions going to provide evidence for those conclusions, not just against the "non- theistic" conclusions (I do not take the question of whether the abiogenesis/ evolution model is "non-theistic" is a to be settled)? If the concerns of theology are amenable to scientific investigation, let those who consider those concerns important to science show how. If not, discussions of "scientific creationism" shouldn't contain assumptions about the nature of a creator or creators. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy