Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
From: amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <548@ihuxq.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jan-84 14:29:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.548
Posted: Thu Jan 26 14:29:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jan-84 01:27:43 EST
References: <791@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 46


On re-reading Larry Bickford's definition of what he calls "compact
intervention": 

>>	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?

I saw that a model based on compact intervention would also be
impossible to work with.  What it says, in effect, is that instead
of there being a non-reproducible process operating now--which seems
to be the main objection to "continuous intervention--there was a
non-reproducible process which is no longer operating.  When we look
into origins of the universe, the earth, life, etc., there is no
difference in whether or not a divine intervention is operating
*now* or not; the question is what was going on *then*.  

				John Hobson
				AT&T Bell Labs
				Naperville, IL
				(312) 979-7293
				ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2