Thanks, Bert. Though I disagree with you and Johnson about the
implications of MN, I really appreciate the clarity of your writing on
this.
Someone once told me that a good scientist needs to possess two character
traits that non-scientists often mistakenly assume would be contradictory:
1) A greater than average desire to have explanations for things, and thus
a greater than average discomfort when no good (verifiable) explanations
exist.
2) A greater than average ability to accept the fact that we don't have
good explanations for everything, and thus a greater than average ability
to wait for (and patiently pursue) verifiable explanations rather than
resort to unsubstantiated opinions.
Faith in the triune God (including God as Creator) is more than an
unsubstantiated opinion. IC and ID are unsubstantiated opinions (in my
opinion! :). Evolution, as I use the term, is a theory that suggests
several hypotheses, some of which are testable, and some of which have
passed lots of tests already. I've also seen some statements made in the
name of evolution that are indeed nothing more than unsubstantiated
opinions.
Best wishes.
Chuck Austerberry
cfauster@creighton.edu
****************
Bert M. wrote:
>Hard to disagree with someone who agrees with me and let me compliment
>you on your wisdom to do so.
>
>I do believe the IC leads to a best explanation being a ID but I
>position this as a best explanation as opposed to a requirement.
>Indeed, MN is an insertion of philosophy into science and in that since
>I do agree with Johnson that MN intrudes where it ought not and prevails
>to the point where if a genetic code was translated to say JESUS SAVES
>it would be considered a statistical fluke.
>
>IC fairly understood leads to a scientific conclusion that there is no
>current scientific explanation. Nature and scientists hate a vacuum and
>as is well spoken in the history of science literature this is not
>allowable. How often have I heard "Well, what are going to believe,
>some kind of God thing." "Well, yes, and so should you."
>
>Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 17:23:11 EST