First of all I should point out that this is a purely rhetorical reply to a
purely rhetorical argument. It is not meant to be entirely accurate any
more than Joseph's argument was meant to be. (Actually I just realized I
got his name wrong in my reply! Sorry about that Joseph.) So it should
not be taken too literally.
Secondly by creation I mean the concept of creation by fiat ex nihilo using
supernatural powers in defiance of natural laws. That could cover OECs who
believe in a young Earth or young mankind or even progressive creation.
Thirdly, of course creation is possible. It's also possible the sun will
rise out of the north tomorrow, but there are scientific reasons why such
an event would be considered impossible. That's why I specified scientific
proof. Creation is scientifically impossible, even if it is "possible" in
the very broadest sense of the word.
Kevin L. O'Brien
klob@lamar.colostate.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: John E. Rylander [SMTP:rylander@prolexia.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 4:49 PM
To: Kevin L. O'Brien
Cc: Calvin Evolution Reflector
Subject: RE: A Poll On Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation)
> If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left -- however improbable
--> must be the truth. If there are only two choices -- evolution orcreation> -- and if it is scientifically proven that creation is impossible, thenthe> only remaining choice -- evolution -- must be the truth, no matter how> improbable it is.By "creation" here, Kevin, do you mean only Young-Earth Creation? orcreation generally?
Another clarification, at least from my perspective: I find YEC utterlyimplausible, and demonstrably contrary to good science. Nonetheless, I'dsay it's -possible-, taking possibility in a broad sense (logicallypossible, e.g.). Would you agree?