Actually, science has led many toward I.D. and Creationism, like Dr. Behe, of whom I'm sure you've heard, author of Darwin's Black Box. My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin
Dr. Behe has led himself away from science and into mysticism, as evidenced by Darwin's Black Box, a thoroughly unscientific work that is riddled with errors, and his failure to even attempt to perform any scientific research on ID.
I am not aware of any proponent of ID and/or creationism who is not also a fundamentalist of some religion, almost all Christian, and is not committed to a religious explanation in spite of any evidence.
My point is simply this: saying that Evolution is scientific and no other view on the origin of life is scientific is dangerous
Formally, the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life; it addresses how life changed after the origin.
If one says that other view on the orgins of the panoply of life is scientific without investigating other views, then that's dangerous and unwarranted. Saying that no other extant view on the origins of the panoply of life is scientific after investigating other views extensively is a conclusion based on the available evidence. Thank goodness we have done the latter and not the former. Additional evidence of the correctness of our conclusion is afforded by the observation that the ID crowd appears to be distancing temselves even further from actual scientific investigation and committing themselves exclusively to political activism.
In other words, why should the Creationist give an Evolutionism a thought, if the Evolutionist will not do the same for the Creationist
How about giving the evidence a thought, and following where it leads, no matter how it may conflict with your preconceptions?
We have given creationism far more than a thought. We've investigated it thoroughly, and some continue to investigate it. It has failed every test.
Creationism was the dominant scientific paradigm of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. The geologists of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, devout Christians to a man, reluctantly abandoned the idea of a young Earth and a global flood, because the theory was contradicted by the evidence. Darwin and his predecessors did the same for the idea of young life and the separate creation of Man. Many have attempted to resuscitate creationism since then, but the evidence just isn't there to support it.
Most of modern creationism consists of attacking various branches of science rather than developing any coherent theories, and the few attempts at developing coherent theories have been abject failures (e.g.: Behe and Dembski) that their proponents have not dared to subject to review and criticism by appropriate experts. But the appropriate experts have read what they have published, and pointed out the fundamental and fatal flaws and errors in many places that are fairly easy for an enquiring mind to find.
Once again, I'm open to change if you show me how they have failed.
I urge you to avail yourself of Ned's offer, but here's what you asked for. The idea of a global flood creating any significant portion of the geologic features of the Earth was abandoned by creationist geologists well before Darwin, because it could not be reconciled with the evidence. Many of them went so far as to assert that no global flood happened.
quote:Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....
quote:Perhaps of particular interest to present-day creationists, however, is the way that Miller also discusses the theological issues. Many of the points Miller raises will be completely familiar to anyone who has followed the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, no matter what their perspective on the issues discussed there. Also, Miller's "The Testimony of the Rocks" book, published in 1857, provides useful historical documentation of the state of geology and the "global flood" model a few years prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. A common claim of some modern "young Earth global flood" creationists is that the geologic time scale and fossil succession is somehow "circular" or otherwise dependent upon evolutionary theory. A simple reading of Miller's discussion, prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory, makes it obvious that before Darwin's theory was published, the basic fossil succession and geologic time scale was well-established by completely independent means, even in the opinion of creationist geologists of that time. Likewise, the theory of a global flood as an explanation for the Earth's geology had been completely abandoned by almost all scientists familiar with geology, including the creationist ones. It was not consistent with the evidence known even then.
I'd much rather have you pick your strongest arguments; its the challenge I search, not what I am already familiar with. I want my view put to the test, you see, I want to see if it holds up, if it doesn't, then I'll forfeit it.
you cannot prove that it could not have been miraculous.
True. Of course, if you want to take that way out, that destroys the entire concept of "scientific creationism" and leaves no possibilities that your beliefs will ever be taught in U.S. public schools as science, and ends this topic (you could re-start it in one of the forums about religious faith), and leaves us with a "trickster God" or even a "lying God" who has deliberately set up the Universe so every test we can apply tells us that no global flood happened. Very few creationists take that way out.
how do geologists know what the "signs" of a global flood is in the strata, having no prior knowledge of what a global flood would look like in the strata?
Well, for one thing, there's no reason to believe that a global flood would have any effects that are qualitatively different from a local flood. E.g., a global flood would leave a global sediment deposit. We don't see that; there's sediments all over the earth, but they are different deposits.
This is assuming that the geological strata actually show set long periods of time.
Not an assumption ... a conclusion based on the data, a conclusion regretfully reached by the creationists geologists such as Hugh Miller, man who were desperately trying to believe in a global flood but too honest to deny the evidence. read teh link I supplied.
a common rebuttal of that it the many fossilized trees we see that go through many layers of the strata.
Moreover, even if you could prove that, a universal flood would be much more destructive and chaotic than a simple local one (I would assume anyway, seeing that there would be a bit more water involved to move and destroy things). Therefore you cannot predict what it would do to the earth or if it would look the same as a small local flood.
Why not? Are you actually claiming that such a flood would leave no traces? No sediment layer? No great channels carved across the landscape? No erosion to a degree we see nowhere else? No worldwide set of jumbled fossils of the dead?
It's certainly unique, no creationist geologist has ever dared claim such a preposterous idea!