>With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
>fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
>no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
>evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
>science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.
While I agree with your assertions and divisions, I would submit that not
only ICR views science the way you assert, but all scientists view their
science this way. It is only the science of others that is viewed as
subjective and preconceived. Witness the willingness of (22?) Nobel
Laureates to sign a statement asserting that Evolution is a FACT,
antithetical for someone subscribing to a non-Baconian view of science.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu