Talk:Conclusions:PQRC 1

in reply to Prue's points

(There's a modus operandi issue here — do we want to coalesce individual conclusions, and if so how? What I'm doing right now is part of negotiation about a joint conclusion, in the High Court analogy, similar to behind-the-scenes argument.)

1. "perhaps alluding to classical concepts" - now linked

2. "the consensus of the biological sciences can be rejected in its totality on informal philosophical grounds" - to be fair to the view expressed, I think "informal philosophical grounds" needs further justification.

Yes. I've changed it to "on arbitrary or informal philosophical grounds" and linked to Beliefs re the Nature and Role of Science with a paragraph about Popper. Maybe "faith-based" would be better than "arbitrary". We need a whole lot more on this: it's common to see great swathes of creation declared off limits on account of perceived challenge to the Bible or B*SF.

3. "appreciation of the layered meanings of the Hebrew Bible" - yes, I linked to one outstanding example. I think that'll do for now.

— Bruce (talk)