Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
> in a post by Ted Davis (also Dick Fischer) Eugenie Scott is
> quoted as saying:
>
> << I said (and have said repeatedly) that the message of ID is
> "evolution is bad science", without providing an alternative view of
> the history of the universe. >>
>
> I think this is really E. Scott's core point. It is not
> enough to simply discredit a theory. All theories have
> problems at some level: that is why they are called
> "theories" not "facts". What Scott is challenging ID to do
> is to propose a theory. If the theory presented by ID works
> better than the current standard, then so be it.
& let me repeat a point made previously: IDers also need to propose
some way of understanding theologically how God is supposed to act in the
world in order the input the required information. Without either a
scientific theory _or_ a theological account, the emperor is extremely naked.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 10:34:10 EST