quote:
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. How can the shifting standards of proof inherent in such a position be justified?
OK, I've got to start by admitting that I don't think I'm one of the people you are addressing. I don't think that science can be used to
prove a theological position. I do think that science can be used to disprove some theological positions - for example I believe that a simplistic belief in YEC is untenable in the light of scientific understanding of the age of the universe, though more complex YEC positions that make reference to the earth being created to look old do step out side the realm of scientific evidence.
I do, however, think science can be used to support theological positions. Theological views on Creation that postulate an old earth, creation using extended processes of geology and biology etc, can draw some support from science. Though that same science also supports conflicting theological positions such as atheism.
quote:
The problem I see, the error in logic, occurs when by trying to scientifically defend an act of faith, the proponent of such a position must use different standards. The act of faith is considered quite sufficient evidence for some assertions (i.e. my personal concept of the deity exists) while the standards of science are used (and unfortunately often misused) for others.
I quite agree. I believe in God for various reasons, none of which are suitable for scientific evaluation. However, scientific methods do affect what I believe about God. My background results in a fairly analytical approach to theology. Also, I do believe that the physical universe, as examined by science, can tell us a lot about God (if, through non-scientific means you believe in God) - his creativity, his power, his patience, his desire to be "hidden" from scientific analysis etc.
™ Version 4.2