I’ve written a number of scientific papers. Every claim made in them has to be supported by evidence. “Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.
Until recent times, creator was a postulate in science. Science itself was an obedience to the mandate from scripture to subdue the creation.
We’re now watching what it looks like without that... and it’s slowly falling apart. One thing that becomes obvious... if you don’t really think God is looking over your shoulder as you do it, honesty becomes only what you think you can put over on your fellow man. Globull warming anyone?
How would you explain where the material came from for the Big Bang?
Re: “Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.”
In fairness, some of the greatest scientific minds of the past might disagree, such as Newton and Kepler. Of course that doesn’t mean God exists, but belief in His creative ability does not mean one holding such a belief is necessarily unscientific.
Wouldn’t a purely naturalistic Darwinian have to believe that:
1. Matter, energy, i.e. the universe came into being of its own accord - or,
2. Matter, energy, the universe has always existed - there is no
beginning even though the universe appears to have one and is
expanding.
3. The apparent design we seen in the universe is really “un-designed”
randomness.
Do these beliefs describe valid “scientific mechanisms” simply because they do not mention God? Aren’t such beliefs also “leaps of faith” as well?
I don’t mean to be argumentative, these are just my own musings. I just don’t see belief in God as the creative force behind existence as an “irrational, unscientific” view.
“Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.
And there’s the rub.....science in it’s true investigative mechanisms can’t speak of arguments that can’t be proven true or false from the tools and methods we currently have available. Yet strictly speaking, a person given to such a mindset or pretends to be given to such a mind set should not be able say if there was a God who created or not. He certainly from a scientific stand point can not offer a view point as whether or not there was a ‘who” type consciousness that originated all that we call the universe since to do so would violate his scientific mind set.
Yet we find all matter of scientists or scientist wannabe writers condemning those scientists who admit to having religious viewpoints that may “color” their scientific rigorousness, according to these pre-biased antireligionists. For example, to be consistent, all genetics scientists must now throw out their science because the father of modern genetics science was a religious Catholic! Capiche...kemosabe? The creator of modern calculus was a religious Catholic. Newton searched for God! Most founders of modern science, were in fact religious in their thinking and most modern science derives from their thinking and tinkering...even Einstein believed in God.
Bkmk
Science is like art. It is just a name for something people do. And, at the end of the day, art is the higher pursuit.