“A definition of science that is limited to the scientific method can not speak to origins, it fails all three tests of observability, repeatability and verifiability.”
The origin of what? Life? The universe? Earth?
“Science, narrowly defined, is not sufficient to explain all knowledge, it is among the most useful ways to understand reality but it has limits. It is simple hubris to assume science is ne plus ultra.”
I’m not making that claim. In fact, I don’t know of anyone that does. Science IS limited, no doubt. But anyone who claims it is the alpha and omega of all knowledge simply has no understanding of science (or epistomology).
“Both the creationist and the non-creationist are looking at present reality and trying to make it fit into the framework of their worldview”
No. Actual science frequently challenges and dramatically changes our world view. It’s happened many times. Galileo and Einstein are perhaps the best examples.
“but the worldview is a priori. Both camps interpret “evidence” a posteriori according to their presuppositions.”
If you are looking to invoke the analytic-synthetic distinction here I can only wonder why because it isn’t doing you any favors. It has only muddied your argument. All “evidence”, in the sense of that which can be observed and measured is, by definition, a posteriori. However, there is no reason whatsoever to state categorically, as you have done, that any worldview is a priori. You might argue that Jungian archetypes are a priori world views, but even those are ‘views’... they are just common objects in the unconcious.
“When the evolutionist’s and cosmologist’s speculative hypothesis were accepted as valid science,”
They are accepted because they use known, valid observation and measurement techniques, not because of the nature of the theory. And as we learn more we modify the theory. It’s a natural, self correcting and self policing process (assuming scientists are honest people). Creationism, on the other hand, begins from the opposite end of the candle... it presupposes an absolutely unchangeable truth/conclusion and then seeks to support the idea through known, valid observaions and measurements. But, because of it’s presupposed conclusion, it is forced to reject well established facts and measurements that might suggest an alternate conclusion. In the end it rejects far more than it accepts. That’s a weak position.
You’ve done a fine job cobbling together some entertaining sophistry here, but Creationism simply isn’t supported by actual measurements and facts.
Thanks and have a great weekend!
What you claim creationists did in this post was not true in my case. I too assumed the science that they taught me was sound. Only later in life and thanks to the internet did I find the tools to read for myself and question my ‘own’ worldview. The more I looked for that which agrees with the Bible the more evidence I found.
In today’s day in age it is more important which facts the mainstream chooses to emphasize and also which they choose to sweep under the rug.
Here’s another example. When I was married over 25 years ago my wife told me I probably needed to see a chiropractor. I thought ‘What? Who me... those quacks?!?!’ Then about 10 years ago and no where else to turn I saw a chiropractor - best ‘medicine’ I ever received for my whole body and handling stress.
Google Taylor vs AMA lawsuit if you want to see an example from 1972 of the heavy-handed way the press handles news.