Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: What is this thing called life?
Message-ID: <301@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 16:50:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.301
Posted: Fri May  3 16:50:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 03:54:34 EDT
References: <993@uwmacc.UUCP> <3674@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 30
Summary: 

In article <3674@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>Paul DuBois says:
>
>> Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin
>> of the matter from which life arose.  Why then should creationists have
>> to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose?
>
>Answer: If you claim that a creator must exist because life could
>not have arisen by itself, you must explain why your hypothetical
>creator could have been self-generated and life could not.

 The existence of a creator is not a scientific issue. Creation science
 is the scientific evidence for a creation, not a creator. Evolution is
 an alternative which claims that life arose from matter. This is still
 in the realm of science. Therefore, it is the evolutionists responsibility
 to explain the origin of this matter. If he cannot, it becomes open
 to speculation. The theory then becomes religious or philosophical in nature.

 Science does not have the burden to explain religious or philosophical
 issues. Maybe this is why evolutionists calim that they do not have
 to account for the origin of matter!


				     Dan


  @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
  returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact!

					  Mark Twain