ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/18/84)
[Eat this line, you bugridden network!!!!!]
Sorry to keep harping on this, but I think it's worth one
more try. Asking creationists to suggest tests of their position
that they would accept as definitive has not been fruitful. The
following dialog suggests an alternate approach.
Jim Stekas: Does that mean that "scientific" creation
is inconsistent with the Bible?
Larry Bickford: It has thus far been possible to maintain
a good consistency.
Jim Stekas: COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible?
Larry Bickford: A scientific model for creation *could* be formed,
yet not be consistent with the Bible. It would have
to explain the data consistently and simply, with as
few secondary assumptions as possible [Razor d'Occam].
Mr. Bickford, what reasonably obtainable evidence would force you into
renouncing that brand of creationism which is consistent with the
particular brand of Christianity that you believe in? If you can't think
of any test of any aspect of your "scientific" beliefs then I might be
forgiven for thinking that the only basis for your creationism is your
brand of Christian belief. Ergo, Scientific Creationism == Biblical
Creationism.
"Just another Cosmic Cowboy"
Ethan Vishniac
{ut-sally,ut-ngp,kpno}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712