Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <791@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jan-84 02:26:15 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.791
Posted: Fri Jan 27 02:26:15 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Jan-84 00:21:40 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 49

Note: I did not see Dubuc's article on Kofahl's statement in qubix's
net.misc. I have requested a copy from Paul. In the meantime, there are
some things that can be said about "Can creationists contribute to science?"

I am appalled at the cavalier attitude of summarily dismissing
creationism and its supporters into the "pseudo-science" category.
I seriously doubt that more than a few on this network have even
bothered to read any of the material published on the *scientific*
evidence for creation. I have found a few who are willing to consider
evidence itself, but by far the vast majority who believe in evolution
have also believed the straw man that evolutionists have created from
the Genesis account and then ridiculed.

I appreciated Steve Summit's article on this - it was probably the
closest to open-mindedness I think I've seen on this net, in any news
group. I'd be interested in seeing his expansion on what he wrote.

On the question of "hypotheses be falsifiable from data obtained in a
reproducible manner and the statement that it is permissible to explain
some data by divine intervention": one of the contributors on this
subject and I have exchanged on what I refer to as "compact" vs.
"continuous" divine intervention. I define "compact" to mean that in the
prehistoric past (think about it - history only goes back about 4000-6000
years), there were processes in operation that are no longer in
operation - creative processes, used to cause things to exist.  They
ceased at a point in time, being replaced by (or perhaps leaving)
sustaining processes. The latter are observable and repeatable; the
former are neither. Further, since the former are no longer in
operation, a new phenomena (e.g., my desk suddenly going from "creative"
[read: chaotic] to tidy) would not be explainable by "divine
intervention" (save the conclusion after repeated observation that no
natural process could account for it), whereas "continuous" intervention
would definitely allow such an explanation.

A model based on continuous intervention would be virtually impossible
to work with. However, one based on compact intervention is fully
viable, basically stating that the world was in a certain condition
at a certain point in time, and that all has proceeded since then. We
can study what is, draw conclusions and make prognoses from it. What
more does science ask?

A good study on this can be found in the appendix of Zola Levitt's book
"Creation: A Scientist Choice." The book is primarily an interview with
Dr. John N. Moore, Professor (now Emeritus) of Natural Science at
Michigan State; the appendix is his notes directly. It is documented
well and deserves much consideration; yet I doubt many have even heard
of Dr. Moore or of the book. (Published 1976 by Victor Books, Wheaton, IL)

Larry Bickford, {sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!lab