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: <667@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 17:32:43 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.667
Posted: Wed Feb  1 17:32:43 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 22:52:40 EST
References: <870@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 32

========================
>  Now there are two possible conditions: (1) The creator did 
>  a good job, so that the initial conditions appear compatible
>  with the laws that science may eventually discover;

Perhaps if the creator had been aware that you require him to
make the initial conditions compatible with the laws that
science may eventually discover in order for you do say that
he "did a good job", he might have done things differently
*just to make you happy*.

Give me a break, huh?  It is not the creator's task to do things
that are consistant with science, it is science's task to figure
out what the creator created.  If a scientist makes a bad guess,
it is *not* the creator's job to change everything so as to
make the scientist's bad guess into the 'truth', it is the
scientist's task to figure out that he has made a bad guess
and revise his/her guess.
-- 
                _____
               /_____\          from the flying doghouse of
              /_______\                 Snoopy
                |___|   
            ____|___|_____          ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert

========================
That's exactly the point I was making, if you read the rest of the
article.
-- 

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