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,net.religion
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <588@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Dec-83 14:12:27 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.588
Posted: Fri Dec 30 14:12:27 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Dec-83 17:25:38 EST
References: <1330@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 23

The draft proposal for a "philosophically neutral" basis or definition for
science starts off fine, but becomes self-contradictory the moment it
includes both the statement that hypotheses be falsifiable from data
obtained in a reproducible manner and the statement that it is permissible
to explain some data by divine intervention.  This is self-contradictory
because ALL data can be explained by divine intervention with no
possibility that the hypothesis can be falsified.  A scientist may
BELIEVE that such-and-such was caused by divine intervention, but as
a scientist, the hypothesis must be kept in the background in the
anticipation that one more in keeping with Occam's razor will account
for the data.  Divine intervention for all events in the world is
the least parsimonious possible hypothesis (everything is contained
in the boundary values, nothing in the laws).  Wherever an event can
be explained in a way consistent with other events or data, parsimony
is increased and the hypothesis becomes more acceptable to a scientist.

Sure, scientists can get their ideas from anywhere, and can hold any
beliefs, but a philosophically neutral science MUST exclude recourse
to a Deus ex Natura -- it's cheating to do otherwise.
-- 

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