Re: The Two-Model Approach (was Testing the Biotic Message)

BHendrsn@kirk.microsys.net ("BHendrsn@kirk.microsys.net")
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:15:42 +0000

Bill Hamilton wrote:
> Here I want to quibble a bit. It's true we can't demonstrate the existence
> of the supernatural -- scientifically anyway, but for some of us the
> existence of the supernatural doesn't require scientific demonstration. We
> _are_ convinced it exists. But still I don't consider the supernatural a
> legitimate subject of investigation, because the supernatural is not
> mechanism but personality and will. As such it may or may not choose to
> cooperate in experiments and observations.

And if true, then creationism will never be science and should never
be taught in the science classroom. That is the over-riding goal of
many creationist organizations, is it not?

> >And since God hasn't been terribly willing to sit down and perform
> >under lab conditions, God will continue to be excluded from science,
> >like it or not. Otherwise, why can't we claim that Allah or Vishnu
> >or Enki or a whole host of other deities aren't really out there and
> >responsibility for the universe? They don't sit still for science
> >experiments either.
> >
> if they exist (Vishnu, Enki...other deities)

If God exists...

-Brian