<< 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.>>
First, where do I or Phil Johnson claim that TR is "science"?
Second, no one is arguing with the terms. You can use them here, but the
results sought are of a different KIND. Historical science is looking for what
HAPPENED. Causal science is looking for, as Flip Wilson used to say, WHAT'S
HAPPENIN' NOW, AND WHY. One can use the results of the first to formulate
experiments for the second (and an experiment is, despite protestations to the
contrary, a repeatable, observable operation, something you can't do with
history).
Keeping these distinctions clear should make the positions held clear as well.
Jim