Replies

What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture. The devious thing about the theory is that once in place it can then be used to persuade those who believe, not to believe. Evolution attacks faith every chance it gets when ironically it has to be taken on faith itself by its own believers.

Correct. Real science does not require a decision on the existence of God. When real science comes up to a supernatural event, it faces a discontinuity that it simply cannot address.

I am an amatuer astronomer. I can look up in the night sky and fully realize that night sky implies a very old universe. However, that doesn't mean the universe is very old. God set up a system with physical laws, the very real implication of which is that the universe must look old. The supernatural governs natural reality in a way that natural reality cannot observe outside of faith.

The question science tries to answer is akin to which vine did the wine Jesus made supernaturally come from? At first glance, it may look like a certain variety of a certain age, etc., but you would be wrong. Science can only tell us what something looks like, not what it is. Minus the supernatural, real science will be correct. With the supernatural, variables are introduced that science is incapable of accounting for.

Those who attack faith using science aren't acting as science, but as a competing religion. They refuse to see this, it would undermine their position.

Those who attack faith using science aren't acting as science, but as a competing religion. They refuse to see this, it would undermine their position.

Yeppers - look at any of the Catholic v. Protestant theological debates that crop up on FR from time to time, the rhetoric is similar to the Crevo threads. Furthermore, the creationists should not act as if their sh!t doesn't stink because the same "morally superior" attitude is displayed by both sides of this deabte. You cannot engage in an intellectually honest discussion over an issue with which both parties disagree if one sides sees the other as "stupid, ignorant, lost, etc." - if this is one's attitude, you're not in the discussion to exchange ideas, but to tear down anothers cherished beliefs. Always remember, you catch more flies with honey.

Personally, I'm looking for intellectual honesty. Unfortunately too many people get so caught up in their dogma to admit when they are wrong or admit the possibility for an alternative explanation. It's this kind of thinking that lead to the Inquistitions and the Killing Fields of Cambodia for example.

I can look up in the night sky and fully realize that night sky implies a very old universe. However, that doesn't mean the universe is very old. God set up a system with physical laws, the very real implication of which is that the universe must look old. The supernatural governs natural reality in a way that natural reality cannot observe outside of faith.

How does this differ from the Postmodern rejection of science? Both Creationists and Postmodernists claim special knowledge that is superior to scientific inquiry and this special knowledge is to be preferred in the case of conflict?