A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science

taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu
Mon Oct 12 13:05:55 EST 1998

In article <361FA919.1481E4ED at earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlanthier at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ok I surrender semantically. The faith, you speak of when discounting
Creation Science is religious
> Faith.
> But the mere fact of belief in a creator does not dis-credit one's
scientific hypothesis. If that
> were true all of Newtonian physics is unworthy of consideration because
of his Deism.

That is not what I said, and of course it is not true. Whether you believe
in God or not, whatever God you believe in, practising Hindu or lapsed
Catholic; that is irrelevant when it comes one's science and one's

UNLESS (you knew there'd be one of those) that hypothesis concerns
something other than the natural world. One can not use science to prove a
creator, one can only use science to ask about the natural world.

Newton's work was not on the existence of God; it was on gravity. The
existence of a deity was irrelevant to his work and our understanding of
it, because it is a work of science.

> In my understanding , the creationist explanation offers a
non-deterministic view of the existence
> of species.
> Species or proto-species are like templates which manifest according to
environment but are not
> generated by selection pressure. Their formation is not the result of
aeons of evolution , tied
> deterministically to their environmental niche. Now this theory may be
false, but it is not 'off
> topic'.

It is not off-topic at all, if the theory offers testable hypothesis and
if it does not rely on the "because God did it" arguement. 

Other than that, I do not understand the distinction you draw above. Could
you elaborate or rephrase the distinction?

My 2 electrons,


Remove "REMOVE" to reply

More information about the Bioforum mailing list