> I was speaking of mathematics, physics and the intelligent design hypothesis - not creationism.
And the difference between ID and Creationism... is?
> if you believe that science has a full explanation of space/time and energy/matter then please give sources.
Irrelevant. The fact that quantum vacuum fluctuaions and the like do not have good explanations does nto give the slightest bit of credence to the notion that randomness is actually the expression of the desire of some super-being.
However, experiment shows that were some super-being to know such, she could not communicate it to anyone and she would have to travel faster than light just to keep up.
Whereas creationism is usually associated with Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there are other origin beliefs which stipulate an act of creation. Diests, for instance, who believe God created everything – or caused the beginning - and then withdrew from it, are creationists.
Although most people around here want to focus on Genesis, the biggest difference in Christian creationism is whether Adam was the first mortal man or the first ensouled man – based on the understanding of Romans 5:12-14 and I Cor 15:42-48.
One group of Christians believe that Adam was the first mortal man and therefore asserts that the physical evidence must support a young earth, about 6,000 years old in proper or absolute time. Many of the posters here and mainstream media are constantly trying to equate creationism to this particular group of young earth creationists evidently because archeological evidence, dating methods and the expansion of the universe make the young earth interpretaion an “easy target” for snide remarks and public ridicule. Such ridicule is silliness because in the first place most Christians are not young earth creationists. It is also silly because the young earth creationist view is a matter of faith which cannot be trumped by any physical evidence to the contrary anyway.
There is also a group which asserts that Adam was the first mortal man but believes that God created an “old looking” universe, 6000 years ago. This is called the Gosse Omphalos hypothesis. There is no scientific argument against this group, because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is a “no bones about it” matter of faith.
There is yet another group which asserts that Adam was specially created in some unspecified manner and place, 6000 years ago. Thus he may or may not be the first mortal man (as compared to other creatures) but he would clearly be the first ensouled man. The assertion is vague and I’m confident any argument against it would be like stacking marbles.
Still another group, which includes the official Catholic view, asserts that Adam was the first ensouled man. It does not dispute the age of the universe or evolution theory and may actually represent the majority view among Christians. Many in this group self-identify as “theistic evolutionists” even though they obviously believe in creation.
My group may be the tiniest (but perhaps we are growing). We assert that God was the only observer of creation week and the author of Scripture and therefore the 6 days of creation must be viewed from the inception (beginning) space/time coordinates using inflationary theory and relativity. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has shown, using that formula, 6 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates is equal to approximately 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates. For those who wish to calculate it for themselves, Schroeder provides this tip:
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the hypothesis that ”certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”
ID has no doctrine, no articles of faith, no Holy writ. It does not seek to explain “all features” only “certain features” thus it is not equivalent to “God created the universe”.
ID does not dispute that mutations and natural selection occur. It is not a replacement for the theory of evolution. Like the theory of evolution, it is not a theory of origins.
Moreover, ID does not stipulate the “intelligent cause”. It could be a natural phenomenon like an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Or it could be an agent such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.