Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!liberte
From: liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability - (nf)
Message-ID: <45500005@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 22:21:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.45500005
Posted: Wed Aug 22 22:21:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 03:59:58 EDT
References: <209@uwmacc.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:uwmacc:-20900:uiucdcs:45500005:000:999
Nf-From: uiucdcs!liberte    Aug 22 21:21:00 1984

#R:uwmacc:-20900:uiucdcs:45500005:000:999
uiucdcs!liberte    Aug 22 21:21:00 1984

/**** uiucdcs:net.origins / dubois@uwmacc / 12:44 am  Aug 22, 1984 ****/
But if probabilistic considerations are
inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous
as those of the creationists are alleged to be.  Right?

Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

/* ---------- */


Probabilistic considerations certainly are not inadmissible to me.
In fact, it seems to me that any scientist who does not use probability
is probably not a good scientist.

Also, I see no problem with creationists (or anyone else) speculating about
what God did or probably did or whatever.

Science and religion both come down to faith - faith in materialism or
spiritualism.  We know so little about the world that speculation is
necessary.  However, I believe (I have faith) that everything can be
known in an absolute sense eventually.

Daniel LaLiberte          (ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte)
U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{everything is relative  -  in an absolute sense}