>Historical science does make predictions and then one goes out and finds
>data that either supports the prediction or refutes it.
Agreed. What puzzles me about Jim's position, and Phil Johnson does
something like this too, is that they use examples from the investigation
of crimes to illustrate their claim that theistic realism is science. The
investigatory process they outline is one of forming hypotheses (e.g.X was
the murderer) and testing them (e.g. if X's blood is found at the scene of
the crime, then X's presence at the scene is established) Here they are
doing historical science, forming hypotheses, making predictions and
testing them. I don't think it's the method they object to, so much as the
putative result.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)