>>Read what I said again. >>
(sigh). I did, Stephen. If you wrote more briefly, I'd read you stuff
more carefully.
>> And you are confusing "respect"
for a "position" with "respect for those holding it.".>>
I think not, Stephen.
>>The phrase ( theistic naturalistic) was coined by Johnson to describe
those theists who assume a priori that God would not (or even could
not) intervene supernaturally in the history of life:>>
Fair enough. IMHO you would have done well by defining this term since it
does not seem to be in common use.
I think it's a poor term, myself. I'd describe myself as a TN but not
with that particular definition. If I change the definition to read
"those theists who assume FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENCE that God did not
intervene supernaturally in the history of life" then it fits me OK. When
I "do philosophy," of course, I am not a TN.
Johnson, I believe, thinks that most people cannot keep science &
philosophy apart and thus my distinction (above) is without usefulness. I
think he is wrong here; most people CAN keep the two separate. It is a
question worth discussion, I think.
>>While I do not rule out extra-terrestrial intelligent life, I would
rule out
their making contact as incompatible with Christianity. For starters,
if advanced aliens had visited the Earth, then Jesus could have been
a spaceman.>>
May I recommend to you a gem of a book, YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL, by
J. B. Phillips?
Your second sentence above does not make much sense (to me). "could have
beens aare terribly uninteresting (IMO).
>>And I regard "PC" (or more correctly MC) as being of more than
"only passing interest." I regard it as closest to the truth as
revealed in the `books' of both Scripture and nature. >>
I understand that you do. I don't; that's OK; we don't need to agree!
BTW, maybe you can describe the difference(s) you see between MC and PC.
Of particular interest is what scientific data difference(s) you would
expect. IOW< is your MC a scientific statement, of a philosophical one?
>>... as Will Provine says on his Darwin Day slides:
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." >>
Good for Will. Whatever he means by that silly statement, it is either an
obvious truth or a misuse of the word "evolution."
>>It (the MN principle of science) is not OK when it extends to
*origins*
(as it does) and apriori assumes that the orgin of the universe, life,
life's
major groups, and consciousness, was fully "naturalistic". >>
Here, my friend, again we must simply agree to disagree.
What this means to me is that there are necessarily TWO studies of
origins, one is "science," with its MN presupposition, and one is
philosophy, which does not have that particular artificial barrier.
Science (IMO) is a game; philosophy is a search for "reality." Both have
their place. SCience, with its MN restriction, can accomplish great
things, things at which philosophers can only gape in amazement. But it
is wrong to think that the job of science is to find out how nature is!
Science concerns only what we can SAY about nature. And that about sums
it up.
>>The "scientific differences" between PC and TE are evident in the
debates
we have on this Reflector! Basically TEs downplay design and any evidence
that natural mechanisms are inadequate to originate life, and life's
complex
design.>>
Stephen -- that does not answer the question.
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]