> Abstract: comments on implementing "Theistic Science"
*SNIP*
> Steven's use of natural mechanisms to explain his observations is not
> controversial - there is nothing to suggest that there is other than
> a natural cause for his calcite veins.
But if the veins were formed, let's say, at 5 km of depth during the
development of a fold-thrust belt it becomes controversial since this
doesn't fit well into a flood model of sedimentary rock origin.
And if I further say that I'm trying to resolve the unanswered question
of whether this fold-thrust belt formed during the late Devonian Acadian
orogeny or the Pennsylvanian/Permian Alleghanian orogeny, then it doesn't
fit well into an young-earth scenario.
What if doing science using methodological naturalism doesn't support
a literal reading of Genesis? Does that mean we need to trash MN in science?
Does that mean MN can't arrive at the "Truth"? Or does that mean that some
should rethink their interpretations of Scripture?
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium