<<Jim, let me ask you this: do you think any current creationistic =
theories that involve miraculous divine intervention as a part of the =
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions concerning currently =
unknown phenomena?>>
John, this is the wrong question. I think you're failing to appreciate
between causal science and historical science. You're asking a question that
falls into the latter realm, but in the syntax of the former. That's why it
doesn't work.
You write:
<< The "functional" versus "historical" breakdown os science is =
inadequate, I believe. Even historical science is very functionally =
oriented, trying to make predictions about genetics, the fossil record, =
etc. >>
You're misunderstanding the term "functional." We use causal science to
understand how the world works, so we can uunderstand and, hopefully, use that
understanding for our betterment. Thus, function.
Historical science seeks to find out WHAT HAPPENED in the past. That
information has no "function." It adds to our knowledge about our past. Now,
something in that knowledge may spur us on toward some causal hypothesis or
other (experiments on gene splicing for rapid change, perhaps. See "Twins"
starring Arnold Schwarzenegger). But the two realms are distinct, and must be.
Jim