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 (Q-Bick)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Creation != Biblical Creation
Message-ID: <978@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 22:32:09 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.978
Posted: Mon Apr  9 22:32:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 01:40:01 EST
References: <970@qubix.UUCP> <224@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 26

[ > = Jim Stekas ]
> Does that mean that "scientific" creation is inconsistent with the Bible?

It has thus far been possible to maintain a good consistency.

> COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible?

A scientific model for creation *could* be formed, yet not be consistent
with the Bible. It would have to explain the data consistently and
simply, with as few secondary assumptions as possible [Razor d'Occam].

> Is it CONCEIVABLE that God did not create man in his own generic image?

Irrelevant. That is theology or teleology.

> Is there anyplace where creation "scientists" have turned up
> inconsistencies with the Bible or has their work just given Bible toting
> "scientists" keener insights into His generic plan?

See first answer. And another reminder: the scientific method was founded
by Sir Francis Bacon in order to gain "keener insights" into what he
believed was a masterful design.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA