<<It seems to me that the best way to counter
Dawkins in such an instance is to teach botany in naturalistic terms, but
also explain how it cannot logically disprove the existence of a creator.
This way you maintain your integrity to science and to faith. >>
Yes. I agree absolutely.
<<Yet, I have significant problems with Phil's understanding of
the philosophy of science.>>
Maybe it would be good to explore this further. Have you read Mark Hartwid's
Steven Meyer's essay in the appendix to "Of Pandas and People"?
Jim