Replies

Good of you to be open-minded. Of course, conveniently, the means to conclusively refute the idea of macro-evolution is no more available than that required to absolutely prove it. You see, the problem is not so much that a creationist view is not rational. It's that it doesn't conform to the pyramid of presuppositions on which so much of evolutionary theory is based.

If the creationist view is true, then saying that it is unscientific is no different than a primitive ascribing an internal combustion engine to the workings of magic or alchemy. You don't understand the mechanism, so you dismiss it in favor of a collection of postulates that are mutually supportive within a specific closed system of your own definition. Rather than being open to expanding your system to embrace another concept, you prefer to define the alternative as invalid, ignoring or rationalizing the internal philosophical and/or scientific contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within your theory.

It would seem that the very simplicity of a model that postulates an intelligent creator doesn't satisfy the need to accomplish the unraveling of the universe through the exercise of intellect. Or perhaps it's simply a question of ego. Possibly you have a strong need to believe that the human mind is the apex of intellect; and, while time and space can be accepted as infinite, the idea of an infinite mind/personality is offensive.

Cheers

Good of you to be open-minded. Of course, conveniently, the means to conclusively refute the idea of macro-evolution is no more available than that required to absolutely prove it.

S: Since the processes involved in microevolution, which you accept and macroevolution, which you don't except ARE EXACTLY THE SAME; your statement is not well taken. Secondly, science never "proves anything" and nothing is ever absolutely "proven". Proofs are only done in mathematics, about as absolute as one can get.

You see, the problem is not so much that a creationist view is not rational. It's that it doesn't conform to the pyramid of presuppositions on which so much of evolutionary theory is based.

S: Presuppositions or various premises in biological evolution have been backed up by mountains of data collected over the last 150 years. Some of the speculations Darwin had originally have been discarded, but the basis for evolution is stronger than ever, especially since the genetic revolution. On the other hand, creationisms main premise "God did it" is unsupported by any data, other than we can't tell whether a mutation was caused by God, a glitch in meiosis or a cosmic ray.

s; The inability to falsify creationism is its downfall as a science, whether you call it creationism, creation science or intelligent design. The other main mistake of creationists is to include first origin of life in the Theory of Evolution. It is not there.

s; One of the frustrations for scientists in dealing with creationists is creationists propensity for heaping criticism on arguments science is not making.

If the creationist view is true, then saying that it is unscientific is no different than a primitive ascribing an internal combustion engine to the workings of magic or alchemy.

S: Yes, by presupposing God did it then your point is correct. Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Logical fallacies are the stock in trade of the creationist positions. The level of rhetorical tricks is unmatched except for perhaps Goebbels.

You don't understand the mechanism, so you dismiss it in favor of a collection of postulates that are mutually supportive within a specific closed system of your own definition. Rather than being open to expanding your system to embrace another concept, you prefer to define the alternative as invalid, ignoring or rationalizing the internal philosophical and/or scientific contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within your theory.

S: God is not a concern of science. Science does not deny God or acknowledge Him. What creationists attempt to do is to get science to acknowledge God is there, when that would stop most investigation and progress. We would be back to idolatrous behavior unlinking cause and effect. "I became rich because I worshiped the right carved rock". When their attempt to push God into science class failed as "creation science" was laughed out of the courts, they substituted a new name with "intelligent design".

It would seem that the very simplicity of a model that postulates an intelligent creator doesn't satisfy the need to accomplish the unraveling of the universe through the exercise of intellect. Or perhaps it's simply a question of ego. Possibly you have a strong need to believe that the human mind is the apex of intellect; and, while time and space can be accepted as infinite, the idea of an infinite mind/personality is offensive.

S: Since I am a Christian Minister, your point is not well taken. I believe in God, but don't have to radically twist reality to force it into a "literal" Bible interpretation.
The literal view is unnecessary, since Genesis 1 conforms surprisingly well to the science God has made. To deny the works of God, as creationism does, puts creationists in danger of blasphemy and heresy.