Dave began his comments with the statement:
>Your points are well taken if the result has to be a scientific theory.
This is precisely my point. Many progressive creationist scenarios have no
way of being tested scientifically. As Howard points out, the number of
scenarios that can be posited are unlimited. Such a position could be held
regardless of the detail of our scientific knowledge. As such, support for
such a position must be argued on other grounds. That is why many of us on
this list have stressed that theological issues must be faced squarely and
directly.
If someone is to claim that science provides a warrant for their
interventionist view then they must provide a rigorous justification for
such intervention including specifying precisely at which point such
intervention is believed to have occurred.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 10:26:34 EDT