ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/06/84)
>> [ihuxq!ken] "And the creationist time scale is in such complete >> opposition to all of geology and astronomy that its proponents >> are forced into the ludicrous argument that the speed of light >> (and radioactivity ...) have been changing." >> At least they are looking at testable hypotheses. But these "ludicrous" >> ideas about overthrusts (hey, you don't need the faith of a mustard seed >> to move a mountain - just add water and wait 50 million years! Further, >> it won't leave any tracks! :-) and immediate rejection of evidence >> because it goes against preconceived ideas - that's *not* science. >> The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford Ihuxq!ken here. Sure changes in the speed of light are testable. What do you think the Theory of Special Relativity was formulated to explain, if not the constancy of the speed of light? Yeah, I know, it's "just a theory" too. Incidentally, your recipe above sounds like it would produce a whopper of a canyon. Hold the pickle. The immediate rejection is of models that postulate meta-scientific forces which pick things up and sort them out by methods beyond any empirical testability. If your answer to the NATURAL PROCESS of evolution is that god (generic, of course) did it, then I as a scientist need not listen to you unless you explain how. But you can count on me as a citizen to catch every word you say. You can shout your creationism from a street corner, as is your right, but it has no business in any schools I pay for, certainly not under the name "science". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Apr 84 [17 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (04/07/84)
> As we don't get it enough from the media, there seem to be more on the > net perpet[ru]ating the idea that scientific creation is the same as > Biblical creation. IT ISN'T! > > The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford Does that mean that "scientific" creation is inconsistent with the Bible? COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible? Is it CONCEIVABLE that God did not create man in his own generic image? Is there anyplace where creation "scientists" have turned up inconsistencies with the Bible or has their work just given Bible toting "scientists" keener insights into His generic plan? " ... and the word was God, and it was generic. " Jim
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/07/84)
Larry Bickford says: >The Louisiana law does not permit the entrance of the Bible into the >classroom. The "Creator" is essentially a generic one, not necessarily >the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or [whatever] one. No moral >attributes are ascribed to the Creator. What right does the state of Louisiana have to legislate that a single creator had done the whole job. Fairness would require that the word "Creator" in the proposed Louisiana law should be replaced by "Creators or Creator". Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/10/84)
[ > = Jim Stekas ] > Does that mean that "scientific" creation is inconsistent with the Bible? It has thus far been possible to maintain a good consistency. > COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible? 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]. > Is it CONCEIVABLE that God did not create man in his own generic image? Irrelevant. That is theology or teleology. > Is there anyplace where creation "scientists" have turned up > inconsistencies with the Bible or has their work just given Bible toting > "scientists" keener insights into His generic plan? See first answer. And another reminder: the scientific method was founded by Sir Francis Bacon in order to gain "keener insights" into what he believed was a masterful design. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/10/84)
> Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation > of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the > plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, > removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has indicated a common designing agent. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (04/11/84)
In response to my question, "COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible?",
Larry Bickford replies -
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].
To this I must ask if it is coincidence that we have yet to see a Creation
theory which is not consistant with the Bible (Arkansas interpretation)?
Jimward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/11/84)
[]
Occam's Razor is a tool of the scientific method. The problem of
what to expose our precious children to is a political problem.
Occam's Razor has *NEVER* been considered as a reasonable political
tool. (Too rational)
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/11/84)
Recently, Larry Bickford suggested that the Louisiana proposed law on creation does not specifically imply bible creation. He stated that the law is general and could be applied to any "Creator", not necessarily the Christian creator. I felt the law is not general enough, and that it is also discriminatory in nature as it mutually exclude the participation of multiple creators in the creation task. I suggested replacing the singular form "Creator" by a term which includes the following plural form: "Creators or a Creator". This would generalize the law, and reject the claim of discrimination. To my suggestion Larry responded: >Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has >indicated a common designing agent. I think this response is too terse and avoids the real issues. Let me make the following points: 1. As the nature of the "Creator" is not defined in the proposed law, a single, but not so powerful, creator may be insufficient for the entire creation job. We all agree that the universe is very complex. It may need multiple creators to do the job. By specifying "Creators or a Creator" we avoid the logical barrier of insufficiency. Note, I have included in my term a "Creator" in the singular form. Therefore it does not preclude the possibility that a single creator had done the entire job. My term is inclusive, whereas the term in the Louisiana law is exclusive. 2. You use the terms creator and designing agent. This could imply a designer and an implementor (creator). I can count here two entities. In addition, we could have a single designer and multiple creators, or a committee of designers and a set of creators. Again we see that a plural form is more applicable to describe the situation. 3. The proponents of the creation law are accused that the generic term "Creator" is still biased towards the Christian god. They are charged that their real intention is to promote their religion. By including the plural form "Creators" the proponents of the law will demonstrate to the world that their motives are altruistic and unbiased. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/11/84)
>>Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation >>of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the >>plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, >>removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. > Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has > indicated a common designing agent. ---Larry Bickford More likely if the universe was "designed" at all, it appears more likely that it was designed by committee... -- "An argument is an intellectual process. It isn't the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says." "... Can be." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rjhurdal@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/11/84)
Net.misc is meant for discussions that don't belong anywhere else. All discussions of creation vs. evolution belong in net.origins, therefore they do not belong in net.misc. KEEP THIS CRAP OUT OF NET.MISC!!!!
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/12/84)
re multiple creators; There are versions which regard a fallen angel in one shape or another as a rival creator. The theme (generically) is quite widespread in myth systems. Julian Davies