In philosophy, Godless Atheists can think that Theism is wrong, not reality, or even anti-science, but it is Theism vs. Atheism, not Theism vs. reality or science. Similarly, in science, it is Creationism vs. Naturalism, not Creationism vs. reality or science. (Please don’t use Evil to describe Creationists; maybe I understand English too formally, for me, the meaning of the word evil very negative.)
The description of naturalism - given by the Oxford English Dictionary Online that naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." - is in philosophy. In fact, this is a scientific statement, so I take it as the description of naturalism in science as well.
As I pointed out, the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism rather than Evolution. Therefore, Creationists need not challenge evolution. In my opinion, one can challenge evolution by raising this or that issue, but it is impossible to refute evolution. However, Creationism can refute Naturalism. Contrary to most people’s view, science is on the side of Creationism not Naturalism. Science reveals the creation of God.
An example is the Big Bang theory. In the 1920s and 1930s, the mainstream cosmological theory was the steady state theory of the eternal universe. In 1931, the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lematre proposed his Big Bang theory to explain the expansion of the universe observed by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s. Proponents of the steady state theory had repeatedly opposed and even hinted that Georges Lematre, as a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory for religious consideration, because the Big Bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning and a Creator. However, the Big Bang theory has been supported by many observations, and has become the mainstream cosmological theory. Robert Jastrow, an American astronomer, wrote in his book titled God and The Astronomers in 1978: For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
dwise1 — Thank you so much for kindly helping me to familiarize with the functions on the forum panel.
I hold a Ph.D. in (Theoretical) Physics and my main field is applied theoretical chemical physics. I published a book (in Chinese) and dozens of papers; unfortunately, nothing important or influential. I am familiar with physics, chemistry, computational science, mathematics, logic. I know experiment. I self-study biology due to my personal interest.
I’m a Creationist, different all Creationists you know. You will understand what my creationism is after I propose several topics for debate. I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO. If YES, I won the debate on that topic; if NO, I lost, and I would state I was wrong. As human beings, we are far from perfect. We may make this or that mistake. Admitting mistakes is not shameful at all. One should be shamed if he/she denies or even covers up mistakes he/she made.
ringo - (smile)
™ Version 4.2
