Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site hlwpc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!hlexa!hlwpc!cb
From: cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: creation, not a creator
Message-ID: <539@hlwpc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 13:14:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: hlwpc.539
Posted: Wed May  8 13:14:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:27:11 EDT
References: <993@uwmacc.UUCP> <3674@alice.UUCP> <301@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1514@hao.UUCP> <308@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ
Lines: 14

>>>  Creation science
>>>  is the scientific evidence for a creation, not a creator.
>>
>>Even if we accept that one can scientifically discuss a creation
>>without talking about the creator, there is no creation science.

I posed the following question to Walt Brown (director of ICR Midwest
and the author of the 100+ reasons for Creationism as posted by Ron
Kukuk):  If creation science is truly an objective science, why don't
any scientists who are non-theistic support it?  His answer was that
if you studied creation science, you would have to come to the realization
that there is a creator.  Seems to contradict the first statement above.

Carl Blesch