[QUOTE]Originally posted by degreed:
[B]Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature.[/QUOTE]
JM: Can you give an example of this happening? Actually, the point is moot anyway since science cannot, by definition, call on purely supernatural explanations. If science falls back on this 'supernatural methodology' then it will cease to function since all tough problems can be solved by goddidit and nothing more is needed. However, in a broader philosophical sense, some scientists can an do attribute the original creation to God and, with their philosopher's hats on, their work tells them that if godidit, then he didit using evolution on an old earth.
quote:
If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation, and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation.
JM: As noted above, many evolutionists do indeed think God didit through evolution. However, notions of God cannot be tested in the lab. How would one falsify God?
quote:
If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...
JM: Except the naturalistic explanations have done very well.
Cheers
Joe Meert