"I think you will find that the God of the Bible does not think that
"it is right and proper for the "Epicureans" and their modern
descendants "to pursue their craft as if that fact" (ie. that God
created the universe) "were not so."
"
Here we must differ, Stephen, although only on what
constitutes "science."
When I play chess, I pretend there is no reality beyond
the playing board. Even though I know I can physically move my
rook any darn place I wish -- including off the board -- I do
not do so, in deference to the game rules.
A scientist does the same, because he is of the opinion that by
so doing his science will be better. That's all. Away from the game
of science, as a philosopher, he is not so bound.
Phil Johnson's contention is not that the above is incorrect -- he
acknowledges that this is the way the science game is carried on.
His point is that relaxing the rule, at least in certain instances,
(see the Geisler/Anderson book ORIGIN SCIENCE) will lead to better science. I
think it
will lead to worse science, and an even more fuzzy line between
science & philosophy.
I think God does not much care if I play chess according to
the (man-made) rules. Nor does he care if
I practice science according to the (man-made) rules. I do think
he expects me (and others) to acknowledge the rules and
use them intelligently (and honestly). That is what I see
Dawkins/Sagan/Gould et. al. not doing.
In summary, when people claim to be a PC, or a TE, or a YEC,
or whatever, they ought to understand that they are arguing
philosophy, a noble profession, but not science. I will grant that
the boundary line is often fuzzy. We need not make it fuzzier.
Burgy