Should Ross' empirical predictions/implications have to line up with =
observation? Yes -- I agree with you completely. There should be the =
usual provisions for confirming the data itself, allowing modifications =
to the theories, and so forth. But theory/observation concordance is a =
necessary feature of ultimately true and even most useful scientific =
theories.
I was just trying to make sure we're leaving room for metaphysics =
(including theistic ontology), ethics, etc., as well a practical =
science, and for the sake of others reading this I'll mention that I =
know this is a concern you very much share.
--John
(Sorry for the chronically wimpy, undifferentiated quoting -- MS =
Exchange has no tools for interspersing quotes and replies, and its very =
tedious to do manually. I've considered switching to MS' Internet Mail, =
which has such facilities, but it is extremely weak in other important =
areas....)
----------
From: Glenn Morton[SMTP:GRMorton@gnn.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 1996 12:46 PM
To: rylander@prolexia.com; GRMorton@gnn.com; evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Hugh Ross, string theory and fossil man
John Rylander wrote;
>Actually, I don't know that all views do make predictions in that
> sense, at least not scientific predictions. Some have, for all
> practical purposes or even all purposes, only non-empirical
> implications.
>
>While such non-empirical theories are non-scientific, this doesn't mean
> they aren't true. They're just -scientifically- useless. This is a
> limitation on science as much as the theories in question.
>
I agree with you. I should have phrased it, "All views about physical=20
phenomenon make predictions in this sense." Obviously, not all truths =
are=20
verifiable (Thou shalt not kill, is true but unverifiable). But, Ross =
is=20
representing his views as being a harmonization of the data of science =
and=20
Scripture. As such, his views should be subject to the verification of=20
the scientific method, as should mine. And as an explanation for =