| I also don't think Creationism is unscientific. I just think it is bad science. You cannot demonstrate that faith in God is less rational than the belief that the symmetric axiom of algebra is true (i.e. reflective of the way the real world operates). You also cannot demonstrate that the "kind" of faith is different. No I can't but that isn't what makes the assumptions different. My point is that faith in these basic axioms, and faith in several philosophical axioms (such as I exist, I am not just a brain in a jar, the universe has patterns that can be observed, etc) is a necessary prerequisite to logic. Without them you simply cannot have logical reasoning. Anyone who tries to "do" science is going to need to assume that kind of thing. But assumption of an intelligent designer is not one of the basic assumptions needed to reason logically. Just as the assumption of aliens, the assumption that my next door neighbour is a vampire, or an assumption of the tooth fairy is necessary to reason logically. Evolutionists do not have any consensus among them about the fundamental essential axioms that are needed for the theory to be true. For example, is time constant? Have the basic forces (gravity, elctro-magnetic, strong and weak) always existed in their present form? Are the laws of physics constant in all places in the universe and at all times in history? If so, does that necessitate that matter has always existed only in its present form? Replace "evolutionists" with "scientists" because your criticism above is levelled at all scientific fields. All sciences assume certain constants extend back in time. Yes perhap gravity has not always been constant, but as far as we know nothing can change the gravitational constant, in fact it is likely to cause problems with planet orbits if it had been significantly different in the past. However, the idea that all living creatures have a single common ancestor defies logic on the face of it. That is irrelevant considering that the fossil record is clear evidence that common descent has occured. The pattern of the fossil record is compatible with common descent against the odds - high odds. If we were to create a random fossil record every second for a billion years the chances are that not one of them would have a patter that supports common descent. Yet the fossil record on Earth does. So many conveniences, a complete lack of fossil cases that would immediately destroy the idea of common descent (where are the mammals in the cambrian? etc) Common ancestry would imply that the genetic information (diversity) existed in simpler life forms in ancient history. No it wouldn't. Common descent simply implies that species today are derived from earlier species in the past. Common Descent was accepted by science before genetics was even discovered. And the theory of evolution as it stands today does not require genetic diversity of today's species to exist in past species. Populations can increase in diversity one generation to the next. Evolution proposes that life forms were both simpler and less diverse - an idea that is self-contradictory. Well that is what the fossil record shows as well - simpler and less diverse. |