Good job, platypus.
Is creation science analogous to anthropology? And is anthropology science? For the sake of argument, let's assume that our creation scientists are in fact entering the dialogue without preconcieved notions (even if this does not tend to be true in reality).
Why not take that a step further and make a couple temporary assumptions, for the sake of an interesting discussion...
Let's say that evolution has been occuring for millions of years. And, let's also say that the creation tales indeed refer to actual events (with the stipulation that the first seven days are metaphorical).
What that would give us is a scenario where life, in all its diversity, had been present long before modern man arrived. Now, as comprehensive as the TOE seems to be, it wouldn't necessarily explain a relatively sudden appearance of modern man. With only a handful of humanoid species to work with, I would say that the TOE, in fact, could not rule out a sudden arrival.
Furthermore, the TOE, granted for discussion's sake, could not even deny the possibility that some widespread human population was entirely obliterated before the advent of recorded history (the most recent one), and immediately replaced with an identical species. More to the point, it would remain scientifically quite possible that this hypothetical "obliteration-and-replacement" occurred a number of times.
Lastly, a gentle reminder that scientific theory cannot be taken as scientific fact. In other words, it cannot be used to overcome some other competing idea, in terms of civic value, whether that idea is considered scientific or not. The burden of proof would rest with the TOE to show that no other explanation is possible.
With that said, do you think there is a framework that could include both the TOE and creation in some sort of chronological account, within the context of either cultural or physical anthropology?
™ Version 4.2
