Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Scientific Creation != Biblical Creation Message-ID: <616@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Apr-84 01:21:43 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxn.616 Posted: Wed Apr 11 01:21:43 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Apr-84 04:34:51 EST References: <970@qubix.UUCP> <612@ihuxn.UUCP> <979@qubix.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 50 Recently, Larry Bickford suggested that the Louisiana proposed law on creation does not specifically imply bible creation. He stated that the law is general and could be applied to any "Creator", not necessarily the Christian creator. I felt the law is not general enough, and that it is also discriminatory in nature as it mutually exclude the participation of multiple creators in the creation task. I suggested replacing the singular form "Creator" by a term which includes the following plural form: "Creators or a Creator". This would generalize the law, and reject the claim of discrimination. To my suggestion Larry responded: >Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has >indicated a common designing agent. I think this response is too terse and avoids the real issues. Let me make the following points: 1. As the nature of the "Creator" is not defined in the proposed law, a single, but not so powerful, creator may be insufficient for the entire creation job. We all agree that the universe is very complex. It may need multiple creators to do the job. By specifying "Creators or a Creator" we avoid the logical barrier of insufficiency. Note, I have included in my term a "Creator" in the singular form. Therefore it does not preclude the possibility that a single creator had done the entire job. My term is inclusive, whereas the term in the Louisiana law is exclusive. 2. You use the terms creator and designing agent. This could imply a designer and an implementor (creator). I can count here two entities. In addition, we could have a single designer and multiple creators, or a committee of designers and a set of creators. Again we see that a plural form is more applicable to describe the situation. 3. The proponents of the creation law are accused that the generic term "Creator" is still biased towards the Christian god. They are charged that their real intention is to promote their religion. By including the plural form "Creators" the proponents of the law will demonstrate to the world that their motives are altruistic and unbiased. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho