" By contrast, MN-as-primary-principle would exclude design no matter
how
empirically useful it might become."
Would it not be more accurate to say "supernatural design"
rather than "design" in the above? Or do I miss your point?
Loren also wrote:
"If one could investigate a miracle which contradicted all known natural
mechanisms, MN-as-primary-principle would never give up the search for
a naturalistic explanation. MN-as-secondary-hypothesis, once it had
learned what it could, could be happily set aside."
Here, Loren, I see some "fuzziness." What I would say is that AS A
SCIENTIST one
ought to follow MN completely. Never give up "the search." As a PERSON,
however, one ought to be able (as you and I have) to "happily set aside"
the best finding of the scientific (MN) methodology and conclude (again,
as you and I have) that there is something more (further in and further
out as CS Lewis writes).
Right on! in your comments about motives! The saddest thing I see, and
this LISTSERV is less guilty of it than most places, is "X bashing,"
where X equals Johnson, Nelson, etc. Yes, even X equals Morris and Gish.
When I wrote critical reviews of Morris's and Gish's books a couple
years ago, I was ultra-careful to criticize the ideas and not the man. I
think I succeeded. At least I subsequently had a very nice e-mail from
Gish about the issues involved, one which encouraged all of us
"creationists' to join together in the common cause.
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]