>... creationism is inherently
>indefensible and therefore must attack the opposition in the belief
>that disproving evolution somehow will prove creationism. Any first
>year philosophy student could point out the illogic in that position.
Brian is complaining about the infamous 'two-model approach'. It was
invented by Darwin. The key evidences for evolution are not 'for'
evolution. They are *against* creationism and the concept of a creator.
The classics are:
"imperfect" designs,
pain & suffering in the world,
biologic universals,
homologies, and
the nested hierarchy of characters.
Evolution never predicted these, evolutionists just used them as a weapon
against a creator. Evolutionists can hardly complain about the two-model
approach. They invented it, and they still use it.
>The biotic message requires a supernatural creator and thus, by
>definition, cannot be science. Or hadn't you realized that?
No, that is not the definition of science. Science puts the emphasis on
***testability***, and does not rule out the supernatural. My book advances
the philosophy of science, by showing that when approached the right way the
supernatural can sometimes be testable science. It offers Godel's Theorem
as a precedent setting example of this.
I understand you may be let down at the references to "my book". But I
cannot re-writeup all these issues everytime someone injects an issue into
our discussion.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128