Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: explanation granted.
Message-ID: <461@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 15:52:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.461
Posted: Mon May 20 15:52:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 22:00:36 EDT
References: <285@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <502@bunkerb.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 70

In article <502@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>
>I thank Keebler for his explanation.  It confirms what I had
>suspected, namely, that his (and many others') definition of
>science rules out God a priori.  This puts a severe limitation
>on discussion in a group which purports to be on the subject
>of creation vs. evolution.  If by definition God does not exist,
>or is at best irrelevant, then how can any discussion proceed?
>
	I do not think that the scientific assumption(see below)
claims the *non-existance* of God, only that he is *irrelevant*
to *scientific* study. It says *nothing* about God in other contexts.
And in fact this is one of the main points of those who oppose
teaching Creationism as science, since the primaray assumption of
Creationism violates the primary assumption of science.

>> 1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes
>> a joke if this is incorrect.  (I am not saying that this is correct; I am
>> just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.)  Science
>> tries to find out about laws of nature.  Laws that change with time are
>> not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency
>> of which is time.  It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and
>> in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just
>> simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient
>> being.  But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption
>> that nature is consistent.
>
>
>3. Your assumption also rules out miracles a priori.  That's ok, though,
>to some extent, because by definition a miracle is an exception, or,
>if you prefer, an inconsistency.  So, it is in a sense true that miracles
>are not scientific -- if you could reproduce a miracle under controlled
>conditions, it wouldn't be a miracle, but, as you imply, an example
>of some other law.
>.  But I don't think it necessary to assume that there
>has never been a miracle, and never will be.  Again, it is an
>approximation, even a very close approximation, to say that miracles
>do not occur, but one must remember that there is a difference
>between the model and reality.
>
	Actually, this depends on your definition of miracle. You
are coming perilously close to a God-of-the-gaps philosophy here.
Why should God's operation in the universe be limited to "exceptions",
or why should his involvement necessarily be treated as an exception.
What if the "laws" of nature are God's laws, and are maintained by him
on a moment to moment basis? Then the distiction between a miracle
and a natural event becomes arbitrary and essentially meaningless.
That is unless God is the sort who will violate his own rules.
Actually, I think God-of-the-gaps thinking is the main impetus
for the support for Creationism.

>> Certainly.  There are certain qualifications that we use to define
>> life.  A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con-
>> sider a rock as a life form.  However, what about a virus.  It is
>> capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it
>> is most often dormant.  Is it a part-time life form?
>
>There are plants whose seeds can remain dormant for thousands of
>years and germinate normally.  I would not call them part-time
>life forms.  Frankly, I don't know what to call a virus.
>
	Ther is one difference between a dormant seed and a virus,
a seed is always metabolizing, at least a *little*, a virus w/o a
host is just an inert piece of complex hydrocarbons.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen