quote:
At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific. Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases. Finally, must the whole body of evidence be considered or just those facts that refute evolution?
1: If taken as a model which has been tested to be accurate so far, it is definitely scientific.
2: That is a philosophical question, really. I'd say that you can use it to refute *some* scenarios, but definitely not all. For example, if evolution is an accurate model, it can refute the scenario where a god creates animals in an order which is contradicted by our evidence.
3: Any theory which will 'take over' after ToE would have to both explain all the relevant evidence that ToE can currently explain correctly AND explain properly all the evidence where ToE has shown to be incorrect.
Why would you ever want to downgrade, so to speak?
A theory of creationism CAN contain a scientific part, but it would have to stand on it's own legs. It has to go through all the tests any other model would. And it is VITAL that the 'God bit' would be optional based on personal preference.
[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-25-2004]
™ Version 4.2