Born2Preach writes:
I don't see why not. People on both sides of the arguement assume that our current science is 100% accurate as a basis.
This point comes up a lot here. As most of the evolutionists will tell you, they don't consider science 100% accurate. That it isn't 100% accurate actually has a name: tentativity. Science is always ready to change theory in light of new evidence or improved insight.
Aside from tentativity, the two most important qualities of science are evidence and replication. A position must have supporting evidence, and any scientist's results must be replicable by other scientists.
If we can assume with outdatable science, why can't we assume omnipotence in a personification of God?
I don't think there are even very many Creationists who would agree that the reason God is omnipotent is because science is tentative. The two don't seem at all related.
Some say that idea may be outdated some day, but even if this is true then the same could be said with science, putting them on the same level. If they're on the same level, we could use either as a given.
But you don't believe your religious beliefs are tentative, do you?
I think you'll find that most evolutionists would argue not that your religious beliefs are wrong, but that they are based predominantly upon faith, not evidence, and that is the key difference between science and religion.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2