I am happy to be corrected on this point. My apologies. Tracing the
origins of ideas is a hazardous business at best!
> [clip]
> ... Bacon provided an initial push into empirical science by
> separating metaphysical viewpoints of the world from mechanical workings of
> the world. They can certainly influence and instruct each other, but, as
> Bacon argued, metaphysics often says nothing about how the world works.
> This is very similar to my frequent caution to make sure that we separate
> metaphysics from physics. So, in his approach to natural understanding of
> the world, I enthusiastically applaud Bacon. However, Bacon's idea
> regarding how empirical science operates is, as I posted earlier, seriously
> flawed.
This is, IMO, a crucial issue for us, which I would be interested in
exploring further. Before I make some additional comments, I would
invite Steve to comment on how he thinks the Baconian viewpoint
handled the subject of origins. According to my reading of him, he
seems to have held to a miraculous creation of the Earth and its
living things in time, the historicity of Adam and Eve, a historic
Fall and Flood, etc. Was Bacon being consistent here, or are
contemporary CEs and TEs being more Baconian than Bacon?
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***