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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To the best of my knowledge, science cannot directly support a creation event. Such an event involves happenings without natural causes, and is therefore outside the realm of science. What science can do for creationism is discount known naturalistic explanations for the way the universe is. After that, the only possible explanation for the state of things is a supernatural event or an as yet unknown naturalistic event/process. In the first sentence, you say "logic or science," but in the second sentence you only talk about science. It seems like you are equating logic and science - but they are not the same. Logic is rational thinking, and science is a method for discovering things about the natural world. Science cannot lead to believing in a supernatural entity, but logical examination of non-scientific evidence can. Non-scientific evidence can range from psuedo-scientific evidence (evidence based in part on science, but unable to be examined completely by pure science) to evidence based heavily on logic (i.e. textual criticism of the Bible).In summary, in my opinion, science cannot directly support creation, but there are rational arguments to support creation, and blind faith is not needed.Later,
JTThis message has been edited by JT, 10-20-2004 01:36 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?

You have both given excellent examples of the way everyone should strive to post. I will do a quick POTM for the two of you.The "rational arguements" of JT's is what I presume your are referring to when you speak of a new thread.It sounds like both an excellent example of topic restraint on your part Mike and what might be a very good topic if JT cares to propose it.

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.

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.

The more complexity which science has discovered and researched, the more I consider NS to be utterly impossible and the evidence of an existing infinitely super-intelligent creator actively managing the universe.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

NS? Do you mean natural science?

A fair enough claim.But if God was influencing events, making things happen that wouldn't, otherwise, or preventing things that would have happened, wouldn't we notice? If God's having a non-random effect on the universe, wouldn't we be able to detect it?Why is it, then, that things seem to happen just as the laws of physics seem to suggest that they would? Where do you propose the Hand of God can be detected?

I always understood NS as meaning natural selection in this town.

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.

Hi Mike. I appreciate you patience. Now and then I try to go back and pick up on stuff which has drifted outa sight and outa mind. 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 to have been keeping on keeping on for hundreds of millions and billions of years to produce soooooo much complexity and design in a universe which in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating. The billions of orderly things going on in the human mind alone, not to mention what it would take to bring the brain to be, existing in it's complexity, in billions of people alone would, imo, logically be just too much to explain, other than a super intelligent creator and designer in the universe to bring it about and function as it does. It's nice to observe and test, hoping the tests will shed light on the way things were millions of years past without eye witnesses, but imo, it's very important to observe and think. That's where logic and faith work together in some areas to question tests. Logic does not so often defend an act of faith so much as an ideology of the existence of the supernatural dimension in the universe. If indeed that dimension exists, the supernatural then becomes science and a dimension to be reckoned in the interpretation of what is observed. Logic observes such existing things as the human brain, the human cell and so much more to question as to how it can all come about with nothing intelligent to do it. We observe in everyday life that that's just not the way things are. If one wishes to make something constructive, one doesn't simply throw the stuff in a drum, shake it up for a long period of time and expect anything but chaotic debris to exist in the drum.

There is, you say, way too much complexity. How much complexity is there? What is the limit to the amount of change which can be generated in a 1,000 years by know mutational mechanisms?Please, show the calculations which show that the change in the amount of complexity over say the last 100,000,000 years is greater than this limit of natural mechanisms.If you can't do that or something similar you are making unfounded assertions based on your extremely limited understanding of the facts of the situation. If there ever was a time for Rrhain's *blink* this is it. Are you hinting that after all your time here you would actually raise the 2nd law of theromodynamics as any kind of impediment??If so, say so and I'll start yet anouther thread for you to make your claims and for others to show that this too is an area that you don't understand. And yet another clanger ( *blink*, *blink*). Have you read nothing here Buz? Evolution is NOT a random process. Your drum analogy is meaningless. This is astonishing!This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2004 09:45 PM

The world was created in 6 days by a supernatural being who is omnipotent, yet needs rest. Benevolent yet evil exist. Destroyed the whole Earth and every thing on it in a flood, despite evidence to the contrary. Astonishing!!!