On Mon, 2 Oct 1995 16:17:33 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>No. I don't ask for an "explanation which gets at fundamental
>causes". I said, "I would like to see all that plausibly explained
>using purely natural causes".
BH>The sort of explanation you are sking for is not the sort that
would
>logically be the result of a scientific investigation. Scientists try to
>_limit_ the scope of their investigations to maximize the likelihood that
>they will be able to conclude something they can back up with evidence.
>What you are asking for is far too broad. That is what led me to conclude
>you were asking for fundamental causes. And I still say you are. Narrow
>your scope.
BH>There is an aspect of science that is and I suspect will always be
very
>unsatisfying to a young-earth creationist, and possibly also to an
>old-earth creationist. That aspect is that real science tends to look at
>very small problems, tends to specialize and does not and cannot draw
>sweeping conclusions. What Eisely said was not science. It was merely his
>opinion.
This is interesting. Scientists can make all sorts of claims about man
originating by purely natural evolutionary causes. Yet when a sceptic
asks what they were, this is excluded as being too broad and not
science.
Such reasoning will always make it impossible to substantiate the
supernatural in history. I haven't read Reason in the Balance, but it
sounds like "defining to exclude".
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------