<< Defining to exclude
is, I agree, something that should be avoided in many kinds of debates.
But in a projcet that is to lead to a result it's not only advisable, but
necessary. You want to _debate_ science, scientists want to _do_ science.
The define limits on what they will consider as a matter of survival. >>
But the context is not scientists who want to "do" science. The context is
scientists who want to explain EVERYTHING as a result of chance, purposeless,
natural processes. In THAT context, "defining to exclude" is to rig the game
so there can be only one winner.
"The aim of historical scientists--those who attempt to trace cosmic history
from the big bang or before to the present--is to provide a complete
naturalistic picture of reality. This enterprise is defined by its
determination to push God out of reality, *because naturalism is defined by
its exclusion of the supernatural.*" [RITB, pg. 59, emphasis added]
Jim