>BH>The point is that the creationist objection that historical events
>>are nonrepeatible and/or that they are not subject to experimentation
>>is a potential danger to any branch of science that has to use
>>indirect observation.
>
>This is no "creationist objection" "that historical events are
>nonrepeatible" and "not subject to experimentation." It is a
>Darwinist *claim*.
>
Au contraire. It can be found in the writings of many, if not all, of the
leaders of the young-earth creationist camp (sorry, I forgot to define
specifically who I meant). Darwinists may make this claim as well, but the
difference is that to the YEC's, this objection is a show-stopper: it
defines origins out of science, while to the Darwinists it's simply an
obstacle that must be overcome by less direct methods of observation and
experimentation.
Obviously _no_ means of investigation within the sciences can rule ou7t (or
in) intelligent design and governance by a sovereign creator.
>If it is a problem for Darwinism's status as a science, then
>so be it.
Darwinism, as you mean it, isn't science anyway. It's a philosophical
position. It can guide science (after a fashion), but it isn't itself
science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Bill Hamilton
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center
Warren, MI