[js1138]

otherwise you could not say on the basis of that premise alone that creation science is a contradiction in terms.

I would say that creation science is defined by its claim that phenomena are constantly being stirred by forces from beyond.

Newton was among the first to formalize the proposition that the behavior of physical phenomena follows constant rules.

[Diamond]

I would say that creation science is defined by its claim that phenomena are constantly being stirred by forces from beyond.

The assumption that phenomena are constantly being "stirred" by forces from beyond, does not, by itself, render such stirring as necessarily capricious, if capricious is defined as determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason.

For the naturalist, though, in a constantly changing, contingent universe, what is the rational basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, that the future is going to be like the past?

Cordially,