Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:00 AM Scientific Creationism

I cannot dismiss the idea of a God and Creation:

... It really does not change the overall situation; it is more an argument over semantics. The fact that the Earth was created by a creator approximately 10,000 years ago, or whether it was created by a spontaneous explosion billions of years ago, does not matter. Either way, it was a one-time event that violates all of the current conditions of the universe ... [1]


... It is even more important to note that there is at least one scientific idea that is not falsifiable or at all. It actually forms the basis of all other scientific data - I refer of course to scientific induction. Scientific induction is used in the formulation of all other scientific theories, but in fact is taken as a postulate, and unprovable by any means. [1]

These quotes are somewhat taken out of context, but I don't think their meaning is skewed because of it. As in all cases, read the original article.

Similar to:

God exists because mathematics is undoubtedly consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency.[2]
This is of course, more humour than evidence. However, it does illustrate an important point: mathematics and consequently science are based on axioms that we cannot yet prove. I can't find an actual reference to this, but I'm pretty certain that these axioms can't be proven. If both god and math are based on some unprovable axioms 1 - god exists or 2 - the axioms exist, then how can I dismiss one for the other? And more importantly, are both not blind faith because of this?



Mike said...

If you believe that the truth, about whether the universe started with God or whether it started with the Big Bang, doesn't change the overall situation then haven't you, in fact, dismissed them both?

I have several questions / queries related to your post:

Can you define what "God" means to you?

Can you define what "Creation" means to you?

What do you mean by "dismiss"?

How do you define Science?

What is scientific about creationism?

I read the article [1] you are quoting from. I came across it some time ago when I was looking for the the theory of intelligent design. I never found it. At that point I joined in with many others chanting "it's not a theory!".

A hypothesis is a rule that is not yet verified but, if true, would explain certain facts or phenomena. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory.

Can you state what Scientific Creationism hypothesizes?

Lakin said...

You missed the point of my post. Although, I mostly just think that I mis-communicated my point.

I am going to do two things:

1) rework this posting until my point is clearly stated.
2) post a new comment that details the questions that I (Hopefully) answered with this new version, and some answers to your other questions which I don't think are relevant to my point.

Lakin Wecker said...

Bah, I really need to get back to this.

lakin's shared items