From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: RL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:07:08 GMT

>>In article <1285@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>
>>	   But is creationism bad science ? I am convinced that one can
[generously edited...]



Oh no, Mr. Bill.  Creationism is neither good science nor bad
science.  You have somehow allowed the definition of science to
escape you -- creationism simply isn't science at all.  Good
definitions of science are ubiquitous in this newsgroup.  Read
some of the other threads if you find it hard to understand those
posters who have tried to explain to you directly how creationism
does not fit the definition for science.  Perhaps a different
turn of phrase, a chance encounter with an example that finally
makes this point for you, the objectivity that might come with
being a spectator instead of a voluble contributor, some lucky
happenstance that will finally bring home why creationism is not
science.  Without recourse to authority other than my own, I
assert that creationism in not science.  This is not proof by
assertion.  This is an axiom.  

Creationists' etiological explanations could miraculously be
true, and, indeed, their truth would be miraculous by definition. 
But miracles are the very antithesis of science, things that
cannot be measured, predicted, or explained.  Even if true,
creationist versions of the history of the world have nothing
to do with science at all.  What's to know?  What's to find out?  Are 
we going to check out creation just to make sure god got it right? 
To say that science cannot prove anything mocks the definition
itself, since, by definition, science claims to know nothing
absolutely.  All theories fall equally to miraculous intervention
or better theories.  There is always a better theory (so to
speak), but there is never a better Jesus.  Creationism confounds
the evidence itself whenever that evidence stands counter to the
holy logbooks, copyright Jehovah. "God created the earth 6000
years ago..." is not a theory; it is a belief.  Creationism
predicts nothing save the end.  And the end will be such and
thus.  There you have it, then.  Let's all trundle off to heaven
and glory in the suffering of the souls below.  Not enough to
keep the mind alive, is it?  (Let's see...what if god created
only .9999999*cosmic stuff?  Doesn't work, does it?)

The bible doesn't have any handy information in it either; no
references, no footnotes, 8^) no bibliography, no salsa recipes. 
Once you get those ten (?) commandments and the Beatitudes down pat,
there's not really a whole lot left to do.  (Well, you could
memorize the whole thing, I suppose.  "Guess I won't be needin'
that book for while, big guy, got it all memorized...unless you'd
like to add a USENET section; the prayers aren't workin' worth a
damn in sci.skeptic.")  

And how would that creationist research proposal read? 

11.7.6.5  Project leaders will meet twice each day to exercise
the Primary Particle Prayer Data Base (PPPDB).  Those prayers
found effective in estimating the rest mass of the top quark will
be placed online for immediate use in national and international
political debate, praise God.  

Doesn't work, does it? 
-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic