Search for truth

John W. Burgeson (73531.1501@compuserve.com)
16 Oct 95 20:34:55 EDT

At a lecture today at the University of Texas, Phil Johnson
said that he was "looking for truth." Dr. Stephen Wineberg,
in agreeing with this (but little else) offered his opinion that
the evolution story "could have been falsified many times but
never had been." He also made this same point about
naturalism. He said it had to be "naturalism or miracles," and
that science would consider miracles if any had ever happened -- he offered
as examples "the shroud" and "the liquid blood of St. January."

I found that argument unsatisfactory. How could a scientist treat
a miracle? If it was repeatable, would it not simply become part of the
natural order of things? If not, would it not simply become an anomoly!

If we were immortal, and death came only by catastropic accidents, so that
only one person ever actually died every -- say -- 1000 years, and if birth
were likewise rare, how would "science" treat the birth event?

Phil's lecture was very well attended -- people sitting on the floor
around & behind him & listening from the doorway. Maybe 400 there
(uneducated guess). He is on a whirlwind speaking tour, as most of you already
know.

John W. Burgeson (Burgy)