Here are some clarifications from me (I hope). You wrote:
<<This says more about your scholarship, Jim, than about Baconian science.
Keep looking.>>
After I posted a lengthy quote FROM Bacon, you write "keep looking." This is
not debate.I actually did a little work on this. It would have been nice to
get something of substance in rebuttal. I'm open to clarification. I may be
wrong, but I don't think knowing the true Baconian viewpoint is the key issue
here. I'll explain below.
<<Again, I invite you to debate my ideas rather than reconstructing and
avoiding them. Argue with what I say rather than with what you want me to
say.>>
Well, there was at least ONE essential issue in my last post that you can't
use this on, because it was an exact quote from you. You wrote:
"With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable."
I asked you for a quote from creationist literature arguing that "theories
have no place" (your words) in their view of science. You offered a quote from
ICR that DOES NOT SAY THIS. This is a key charge that you'll have to support
with something more than innuendo.
You wrote:
<<The demarcation between fact vs theory is a different topic altogether.
Again you have detly changed the topic.>>
Nonsense. That is exactly the point of creationists. But you want to tie
creationists to your rendition of Baconian science. That is putting words in
THEIR mouths. Why don't we leave Bacon aside for the moment and just show me
where they say something like this.
The key arguemnt is well stated by Johnson. I wrote:
<<Phil Johnson's treatment of this issue is still persuasive>>
Steve responded:
<<Not among scientists.>>
I'm not putting words in your boca this time. There they are. But are you not
putting words in the mouths of all scientists with this generalization? No
scientist would agree with Phil's rendition? You honestly believe this? What
if I gave you several names?
Jim