>>Again, I have no problem with science's naturalistic rules as
long as they recognise that they are just that: man-made rules.
>>
OK. Agree.
>>I have no problem with science trying to see if they can find
a naturalistic process by which life began.>>
OK, Agree.
>>However, I believe it becomes idolatry when scientists mistake
the rules for ultimate reality, and fail even to consider fairly
whether a Creator might have originated life.>>
AGree with first clause, not with second WHEN PRACTICING SCIENCE!
>>And with Phil Johnson I cannot understand how Christians who
believe that God is real and that He did in fact originate life,
believe it is *in principle* leads to better science to rule this
out.>>
I can accept that you "cannot understand." Herein lies the crux
of our mini debate. Let me give two or three reasons why this is so.
1. It never allows a scientific copout -- "god of the gaps."
2. It keeps the occult out of science.
3. It allows people with wildly varying metaphysical assumptions
coming from many cultures to agree on a common set of ground rules.
4. It works well.
5. It is so commonly accepted that those who flaunt it are
liable to be ignored or ridiculed. This is just a fact.
That's five reasons. Maybe others can add more. Johnson has
done a very good job (IMO) of
arguing the opposite case in his two books. I admire him for that,
and I wish him well in sharpening the issues.
Burgy