I do know the future. I am going to have to move in a few months.
>
>>>Now you are going to say that PC is an alternative position to
>evolution.
>it isn't because there is NO experimentum crucis that can distinguish
>between PC, TE and atheistic evolution. These last 3 positions from an
>observational point of view are all identical, using the very same data
>with different metaphysical twists.>>
>
>I'm going to, again, disagree, Glenn. I expressly laid out that I think,
>at least at present, the PC position (for that matter, the TE position
>also) is one of philosophy -- not science. Which leads me to agree with
>your observation that there is (at least not today) any "experimentum
>crucis" (is that good Latin?) to differentiate between them.
I would suggest that you might be mixing science and metaphysics. In one
sense metaphysical positions can rarely have experimenta crucia. (did I get
the declinations correct?) Scientific positions can. I may be wrong, but
the above looks contradictory to me.
So we are
>discussing philosophy, not science. In philosophy, I assert, PC IS an
>alternative to TE as well as to AE.
>
>Oh yes -- to say "PC is not an alternative to evolution" is nonsense.
>It's true -- in the same sense as PC is not an alternative to quantum
>mechanics. The word "evolution" is just too broad a term to use in the
>sense you used it.
If we restrict the discussion to the philosophical position, then I would
be forced to agree with you, that PC is an alternative to TE and AE. But
when we start discussing observation, there is no difference in the data.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm