" By contrast, MN-as-primary-principle would exclude design no matter
empirically useful it might become."
Would it not be more accurate to say "supernatural design"
rather than "design" in the above? Or do I miss your point?
Loren also wrote:
"If one could investigate a miracle which contradicted all known natural
mechanisms, MN-as-primary-principle would never give up the search for
a naturalistic explanation. MN-as-secondary-hypothesis, once it had
learned what it could, could be happily set aside."
Here, Loren, I see some "fuzziness." What I would say is that AS A
ought to follow MN completely. Never give up "the search." As a PERSON,
however, one ought to be able (as you and I have) to "happily set aside"
the best finding of the scientific (MN) methodology and conclude (again,
as you and I have) that there is something more (further in and further
out as CS Lewis writes).
Right on! in your comments about motives! The saddest thing I see, and
this LISTSERV is less guilty of it than most places, is "X bashing,"
where X equals Johnson, Nelson, etc. Yes, even X equals Morris and Gish.
When I wrote critical reviews of Morris's and Gish's books a couple
years ago, I was ultra-careful to criticize the ideas and not the man. I
think I succeeded. At least I subsequently had a very nice e-mail from
Gish about the issues involved, one which encouraged all of us
"creationists' to join together in the common cause.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]