Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability
Message-ID: <1001@shark.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 22:21:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.1001
Posted: Wed Aug 22 22:21:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Aug-84 03:07:33 EDT
References: <539@denelcor.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 39

Paul DeBois' article denouncing loose terminology makes me think that
he does not know what science is.  

First, he ???-->says<--??? that attacking the >use< of probability in
creationists' arguments and also attacking their particular >values< for
those probabilities is contradictory.  It is not.  The creationists say
"if the chances for life naturally occurring are small, then life
did not occur naturally".  (this proposition is equivalent to saying that
all small numbers are equal to zero)  When other people say that creationists
should not use probability, they are really attacking this proposition
(or so I believe).  When they are showing better means of determining
probabilities, they are showing areas of misunderstandings held by
the creationists.  These two methods of attack on the creationists'
arguments are not contradictory, rather they reinforce each other.

The more important point in my mind is that he is attacking the
uncertainty in the arguments on the non-creationists' side.  The
answers given by science are not absolute, because not all people 
have sensed in every way possible all the stuff of the entire universe
and all the events that have ever happened.  (and people don't have 
the brains to understand all information, either) In other words, we have
a limited window into reality.  Admitting the uncertainty is being honest.
Religious explainations of whatever claim to be "absolute".  They are
"THE" truth.  Gilded, with sugar-sweetened angels.  Trust in 
"The Answer", and life will be easy, for you will not have to look
at the world, nor will you have to think about the world (esPECially if
something turns up that is not already in your picture of the world).

We all depend on our senses to detect what the world is like, 
and we have to use our brains to figure out what is going on.
If anyone has the inside scoop on "absolute truth", then could
you please let us in on it?
And don't use any religious tenets as your axioms, 
because we do not agree that they are valid axioms.
That which we perceive with our senses is valid to use in
understanding the "real" world, because
it seems that that which is perceived by the senses is common to everyone.

Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp