My question is posed to those who attempt by use of science to support creationism of any kind, be it YEC, theistic evolution, or intelligent direction.
To the best of my knowledge, science cannot directly support a creation event. Such an event involves happenings without natural causes, and is therefore outside the realm of science. What science can do for creationism is discount known naturalistic explanations for the way the universe is. After that, the only possible explanation for the state of things is a supernatural event or an as yet unknown naturalistic event/process.
It is my assertion that accepting the actions of a creator deity is a personal act of faith, not one of logic or science. Using the discipline of science is by definition to naturalistically observe and test.
In the first sentence, you say "logic or science," but in the second sentence you only talk about science. It seems like you are equating logic and science - but they are not the same. Logic is rational thinking, and science is a method for discovering things about the natural world. Science cannot lead to believing in a supernatural entity, but logical examination of non-scientific evidence can. Non-scientific evidence can range from psuedo-scientific evidence (evidence based in part on science, but unable to be examined completely by pure science) to evidence based heavily on logic (i.e. textual criticism of the Bible).
In summary, in my opinion, science cannot directly support creation, but there are rational arguments to support creation, and blind faith is not needed.
Later,
JT
This message has been edited by JT, 10-20-2004 01:36 PM
™ Version 4.2