Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma
From: emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <837@uw-june>
Date: Fri, 6-Jan-84 00:01:13 EST
Article-I.D.: uw-june.837
Posted: Fri Jan  6 00:01:13 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jan-84 02:06:25 EST
References: <1330@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 38


    2.	The assumptions basic to science
	d.  The natural world is lawful and reproducible and therefore worthy
	    systematic investigation.
	e.  The laws of logic are valid.

    3.  Logical corollaries drawn form the definition which define the proposal
	g.  There is no requirement that the scientist assume:
	    2)	That no divine intervention has ever occurred in the natural
		world.
	    3)	That every observable datum can be totally explained in terms
		only of material cause and effect.
	    5)  That God does not exist and only the material world is real,
		or at least that the scientist must function accordingly in
		his laboratory, thus submitting to the proposition that his
		personal faith has no relevance in his scientific endeavor.


-------------

To precisely the extent that divine intervention may have occurred  in
the past, or may occur in the future, the behavior of the physical
world is not reproducible.  As the reproducibility of this behavior is,
indeed, required for scientific endeavor, we must assume the absence of
divine intervention.  When physical behavior seems to occur which does
not follow these norms, we may point that out and retire to the
sidelines allowing the theologians and philosophers to hash out what is
going on (or we may remain in the fray, but not as scientists).  Two
examples that seem to fit here are the Shroud of Turin and Saint
Januarius' blood.

Come on, guys.  Even if the creationists are right, what they are
talking about is not biology.  Rather than waste time with disputes on
whether it should be taught in biology classes, everybody concerned
would benefit from having a unit on the difference between science and
reality, and the nature of scientific hypothesis, added to the
curriculum.

-Joe P.