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