Very well said. Is the need to "clobber" so strong that it should
get in the way of logically discussing the question, "What is the most
rational explanation for what we observe?"
>I would guess that all Christians would gladly attribute "natural
>process" laws to God's creation and sustenance.
Yes. So why isn't this a non-issue that is never raised by TEs?
As discussed in a post last night, there is a big difference between
EXPECTING/HOPING for miracles during creation, and concluding that if
there were miracles, God was only involved during the miracles. This
just doesn't follow, logically.
>in the spirit of the normal functioning
>of the scientific enterprise, we should use our usual modesty...
>and be cheerful to grant...
>But also in the spirit of open and collegial inquiry, we should
>not be fearful or overmodest of reporting,...
This is a good description of balance, of not using "slippery
slope" logic to avoid anything that (using our imaginations to
dream up worst-case scenarios) might be abused. Science seems
to work best when it is free to go where the evidence leads.
Craig