Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mcgeer
From: mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <10673@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 00:04:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10673
Posted: Wed Oct 16 00:04:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:13:37 EDT
References: <11384@rochester.UUCP> <615@hou2g.UUCP> <143@ucdavis.UUCP> <12288@rochester.UUCP> <915@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 35
Keywords: creationism, phenomenology, Occam's Razor
Xref: watmath net.politics:11512 net.religion:7983

No, No, Rick, don't respond to a creationist...

In article <12288@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven.
>But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence
>of black holes.  It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can
>ever be proven.  What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance
>of what might be black holes.  To draw parallels, what we observe in nature
>is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation-
>ism.
>
>I rest my case.
>
>p.s.  Don't shoot this example down, there are a million more where this one
>came from.  Science churns them out in unlimited quantities.

In some absolute sense, you can't prove *anything*, with the *possible*
exception of your own existence (and even that's doubtful -- Descarte's proof
is pretty flawed).  However, having conceded Bishop Berkeley that, I am forced
to accept Hume's rebuttal: namely, that our senses don't lie to us, and that
the Universe is pretty much as we see it.

OK.  Accepting Hume, we get Occam's Razor: use the minimum explanation
necessary to cover the facts.  We see x-rays in Cygnus X-1; these x-rays are
consistent with those emitted by an accretion disk around a black hole; we
know of no other phenomenon that could generate them. Ergo, we are looking at
a black hole.

Where is the creationist parallel?  What do we observe in nature that requires
a Creator? That is, what phenomenon do we observe that cannot be explained by
accepted physical (and chemical, and biological) theory, but could be explained
by the existence of a Creator?  Where, if you like, is the Babel Fish?


								-- Rick.