Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!faustus
From: faustus@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion,net.philosophy,net.physics
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <158@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jan-84 21:15:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.158
Posted: Wed Jan  4 21:15:14 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 04:26:08 EST
References: <2474@azure.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 31

x

You are missing an important point when you say that "logic
makes some basic assumptions". Logic, in itself, makes no
assumptions, it has axioms. The results you obtain are to be
considered only in relation to your axioms, and how you apply
the results and choose the axioms have nothing to do with the
logical process. The same applies to sciences like physics --
you create axioms and build systems on them, but you are not
making assumptions. And when you say that some physical
statement is true, you are really saying that it follows from
certain axioms, which are probably the correct (or the best)
ones to make. No physicist, however, would say that some
statement is "absolutely true", and I think the same holds true
for biologists and other scientists -- they create axioms and
form theories, but they never claim that something can
absolutely be proven about the real world. As you point out, you
can always take the position of the solipsist, but this is
counter to the whole point of scientific thought, which is that
the Fundamental Axiom Of Science: "Nature is regular", leads to
a system that is useful. So you really can't say that the
creationist viewpoint is absolutely worthless, because there is
no way to make the scientific system foolproof.  I don't
believe, either, that any scientist who thinks about the
philophical basis of his system would disagree. Although it is
probably sort of useless to point this out to most people, it is
important to know in the great arena of idealogical contention
where the walls are, so to speak, or something like that...

	Wayne