Can science support creationism?

Some time ago, I registered here as Bigmike. At that time, I encountered some computer problems and by the time I fixed them I had forgotten my password, so I went back to simply lurking here. In my short posting career as Bigmike, I proposed and had accepted a thread in the "Is it science" forum. To all appearances I abandoned the thread, but it was not by choice. So, I would like to re-submit it, if I may, as the question still interests me. The following is copied from the original posting.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?To further elucidate my question, I offer the following. I am willing to defend any or all of my assertions upon request. 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. These are two completely unrelated exercises, both certainly valid within their context, but still unrelated.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. This strikes me as being highly inconsistent. So, to rephrase my question, how can supporters of scientific creationism account for this inconsistency or show that I am mistaken and no inconsistency exists? I look forward to any replies.{Added link to old topic - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-20-2004 12:49 PM

We seem to agree, JT, on my basic premise, that science is incapable of supporting a creation act.You are also correct that I do fail to mention logic in the sentence you pointed out. I subsequently say that the error in logic comes when proponents of creationism try to use science to defend their position (which you are not doing) and that was what I was refferring to. My wording was sadly inexact. I will rephrase more concisely.Using science to support a creation act is illogical. One reason, among several, is that it requires a special pleading in that natural processes are accepted at some points while the opposite is true for the acts of the creator. How can this problem be accounted for? I invite responses from any who disagree.As to your further comments, I disagree but find them to be very interesting. I would be happy to get into it with you. Perhaps in another thread?

Dr, Cresswell,You take what seems to me to be a wise and balanced approach. Science establishes facts and makes theories to explain them and to deny that it works is incorrect on the face. Spirituality, in a world like ours, can only reasonably be approached as you are doing it.The sort of person I was addressing are those (and I have seen them posting here) who are willing to use some science, but only when it supports their views, and automatically discount it when it does not. The mindset that knows what is and that being so, any evidence to the contrary must be false.

NS? Do you mean natural science?

Then to return to my original question, how do you account for the different standards of proof you seem to be using? Science describes things using it's method, and you believe them. Then you believe in a deity which is an act of faith that science cannot address, which is fine, but you say that science supports this faith.How can it? Science cannot observe or describe a deity and I think both theist and atheist would agree on that. Do you believe that the findings of science show the work of a creator deity? If so, at what point do you stop using science and start going on faith and why? I am glad to see this reply, as it goes to the heart of my original question.

Buzsaw,The second law of thermodynamics is in no way a bar to naturalistic development of the universe or life. A general statement of it is that universal entropy increases over time. There is nothing in the second law that denies the existence of pockets of localized decreasing entropy, which can naturally occur as a result of a greater net loss of entropy elsewhere. The words "disorder" and "order" when discussing the second law are loose approximations, as is the phrase "Disorder increases" (for that matter, any non-mathematical statement of the second law, including mine, is a loose approximation). Using these terms and a minimal understanding of the second law as a great philosophical or poetic concept that applies to all things at all times and in all contexts simply isn't correct.

edited to remove duplicate post.This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-04-2004 02:58 PM

"The point of my post #8 is that the complexity of science is what drives my logic that there's simply way too much complexity for NS."Leaving aside points of fact, I suppose the crux of the matter may be why you make that decision. In your opinion, when is a natural, scientific explanation to be believed and when is a supernatural, faith based explanation more desirable?

You are correct, up to a point. Science can't prove creationism, which is the point of this.I am writing this without reading the next ten posts, which likely make these same points, so forgive me if I am pedantic. I simply want to replyto you myself.First, you are mixing up your sciences rather a lot. The Big Bang is one thing, biogenesis another and information theory something else again.I will focus on the information theory part of your reply. The first thing I think we have to do is agree what information is, then we can decide if what you say about it is accurate. How fo you define information?According to information theory, and using it's definition (which I will supply later if needed), information is created every day. Turn your radio on and set it between stations. Listen to the static. That is much more information there then in a dna sequence.