> is there anytime when science should make the "no possible natural
mechanism" conclusion instead of the "no known natural mechanism"
conclusion?>
PMFJI. THis is a key question. I would answer it "no"
because I hold to the methodological naturalism foundation of science. I
suspect Al Plantinga (the philosopher) as well as Behe, Johnson, etc.
would answer it "yes."
As Plantinga points out, however, the difference between a "no" and a
"yes" is pretty much a debate on what words mean. If I substitute the
word "I" for "science" in what you've written it reads:
>> is there anytime when I should make the "no possible natural
mechanism" conclusion instead of the "no known natural mechanism"
conclusion?>>
And to this question I must answer "yes." But I don't (personally) call
it "science" when I do so.
Does this help? Or hinder? < G >
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]