Glenn wrote:
>This illustrates a problem I see in the Christian argument. If we don't know
>something, we have a tendency to argue that therefore science can never
>explain it and thus it must be designed supernaturally. And if there is a
>problem for the creationist side, we say that someday we will find an answer,
>thus we don't have to feel the full force of the problem. To me this sounds
>like "Head I win; tails you loose." How can we tell which when each of these
>positions should be used?
This of course is the hallmark of an untestable hypothesis. I don't think
either model is in theory untestable, but certainly evolutionists have more
explaining to do, and this is a case in point. It maskes sense for a
creator to do things in an organized, systematic way. For the same to occur
in evolution requires a very compelling necessity. The fact that intelligent
individuals can espouse either view manifests again the nature of the
conflict in which we are engaged. Freedom of choice is the greatest issue
in the controversy. God will until the final die is cast, preserve freedom
to believe or to doubt His word. I can love a God like that. But it does
complicate being a scientist!
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu