Re: Kevin O'Brien wrote:

John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:58:10 -0700

Kevin wrote, in part:

" In any event, PC still rejects evolution, and it still relies on
miracles, so it is just scientifically impossible as OEC or YEC. It
also suffers from the handicap that it produces results that are
indistinguishable from evolution, so there is no scientific advantage to
assuming PC over evolution."

Understand what you say. I'd class your "OEC" as a variant of PC, but
that's a quibble.

As I mentioned to Glenn, the PC position I hold is a philosophical, not
scientific position. And it really has no particular relationship to
"evolution," the general word. It does posit non-natural causation as a
regular feature of the world we live in. It does stand in opposition to
TE as well as AE, of course, which assume no non-natural causation at any
time (AE) or non-natural causation only at certain specified times (TE)
such as the Cana wedding, etc.

In any event, the PC I hold is comfortable with "evolution" as being both
the best scientific paradigm for our time and most probably being
explanatory for most of what we observe. At the same time, for the
reasons I've already set forth, it is highly skeptical of it accounting
for the totality of what we observe.

Appreciate the POV.

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]