The most popular brand of creationism at the present time is called Intelligent Design. However, according to the currently accepted principles of science, Intelligent Design isn’t science. The winning argument in
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al states the scientific consensus admirably: Science can only accept natural explanations, never supernatural ones.
quote:
This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.
ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107 (Pennock)).
It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).
This is a big problem. All mainstream creationists don’t want to play the very popular science game and insist on playing their own game. I believe that their attitude violates the wisdom of Scripture. There is a proverb that says,
quote:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)
Are there any scientifically trained creationists here who would like to consider an acceptable theory of creationism that obviously comports to the fundamental principles of science? My suggestion may seem heretical to theists but I do have a theory of origins that does not presuppose an Intelligent Designer.
Edited by Shubee, : No reason given.
Edited by Shubee, : for clarity
Edited by Shubee, : Added a link to an article that contains many references explaining why ID isn't science.
Edited by Shubee, : As per request.
Edited by Shubee, : As per request.
™ Version 4.2
