Re: science and miracles

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 27 May 1998 22:06:06 -0500

At 05:11 PM 5/27/98 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Glenn wrote:
>
>"You missed my point. Go read the note again. I said that all we could
>do
>as scientists was look at a set of facts and say that they are or are not
>consistent with a miracle having occurred. "
>
>No, I understood that point. What I was trying to do was extend it.
>

And I am trying to avoid that extension. :-)

>Actually, having witnessed the birth of one of my children, I'd observe
>that the event is "consistent with a miracle having occurred."
>
>Maybe "consistent with non-natural causation having occurred" is a better
>term? But that includes almost everything!
>
>How about "inconsistent with natural causation having occurred?" Maybe
>that defines what we are wrestling with better.
>
I like that very much.

>What we do with such an event afterwards seems most important. If we just
>say
>God did it, and stop there, are we not "giving up too soon?"

yes, I agree with you here. We can't sit back and be satisfied we must
look on.
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm