> I am NOT arguing for "progessive creation."(pc) I am asking Howard to provide
> with something specific to support his views of one creation fully embodied
Bert, if you're asking for an airtight _proof_ you will be disappointed.
Neither science nor theology can offer proofs (in the strict logical sense)
of its positions. Both can, however, offer a number of 'evidences' or lines
of argumentation that build a case for favoring one theory or proposition
I suppose I could collect such a list from what I have written in various
essays, book chapters, books, etc. But before I do that I would like to have
some idea concerning which of my publications you have already read
(apparently without being convinced).
By the way, Bert, when you say that:
"But, if I DID want to argue for "progressive creation", then I would need
to point to instances where the evidence strongly points to the inability
of"evolutionary" mechanisms to accomplish the development. This is the
agenda of "design" theory where "irriducible complexity" (IC)
is put forth as just this. The IC folks see IC all about so I would suppose
that they feel that pc is prevelant action."
you are correctly seeing the ID movement for what it is -- a movement that
argues for the inadequacy of the system of natural causes and the necessity
of occasional episodes of form-conferring supernatural action -- otherwise
called "progressive creationism." ID = DI, where DI = Divine Intervention.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 09:20:35 EDT