Pim
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>This is nonsense. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers,
>else, there would be no need for research.
SJ: Johnson was simply pointing out that the National Academy of
Science's rules in "Science and Creationism: A View from the
National Academy of Sciences" (1984) that:
SJ: 1. "the most basic characteristic of science" is "reliance upon
naturalistic explanations" and "the creation of the universe,
the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through
supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding."
and
SJ: 2. "negative argumentation employed" against "the theory of
evolution" is "antithetical to the scientific method"
SJ: effectively meant that "advocates of supernatural creation may
neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the
scientific establishment" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp7-8)
Nonsense 1) They may argue for their own position and if they believe
there is a scientific foundation for their arguments then they should use
scientific reasoning to support them. The problem is that supernatural
processes do not allow to be tested by science and can therefor not be
tested nor disproven.
2) claims of the scientific establishment can be disproven the way claims
have been disproven for centuries.
PM>p. 19(q): {With respect to animals, Darwinists attribute the
>inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time.}
>
>I wonder about this, since the datum expressed here is not true.
>Animal speciation has been observed in the wild and also has been
>produced in the laboratory. Even at least one new species of
>Drosophila has been noted.
SJ: That "Animal speciation has been observed in the wild" is irrelevant
because the issue that Johnson raisesd is whether it had been
observed in the "laboratory":
Both were addressed above.
PM>[The end. For now.]
SJ: Let's hope the second part of Elsberry's review of Darwin on Trial
is better than the first!
Johnson could only hope.