Well, the creationist recognize that there is a problem with radioactive decay. These decay products are recognizable and there is far too much of it to be explained by the current constants (decay rates). So I recall some idea that the constants changed. One of the places was purportedly with Noah’s ark, though it doesn’t have to be the only one. Not sure how you get precisely 2348 BCE, but presuming that is the date, then surely there He and H lines from stars, the red shift, etc would be very different because the strong/weak and E&M forces would be different …
Because lots of people are concerned about the Bible being inerrant, and science does not support some of the ideas in the Bible (ie. Noah’s flood, 7 literal days, etc.), and human origins complicates the idea of original sin and where it came from, etc.
It’s very interesting how origins study is so inextricably linked to religion in a way that other disciplines of science are not.
1 Like
Simplistic biblical chronology 4004-1656=2348
As for all the science, God lies. God makes it all up. God makes everything look as if He didn’t create it at all, let alone in 6 days 6025 years ago. For His truth’s sake.
Easily, but they all demonstrate that apart from human intelligent agency or purposeful design, there isn’t a trace, no gap whatsoever from grounding being on up.
I wouldn’t say it that way. Just that it is ridiculous to assert that the Bible be read as though it were a NPR/BBC/NHK whatever headline news account.
While that link is really cool I’m not sure how you believe it tors into evidence for supernaturally modified anything. It’s not stating anything for god driven molecular engineering. It’s about how can a company develop technology to track engineered organisms and those are being viewed as something created by a company.
As i thought i emphasized by italicizing the word “supernatural” in my statement…
And i stand by that. one can not, it is impossible, fruitless, pointless, hopeless, logically invalid, contradicts reason… one can not empirically find evidence for supernatural agency or supernatural modification or supernatural anything. that is entirely outside the realm of empirical science. science empirically studies the natural world, anything supernatural is by definition outside the scope, ability, realm, and abilities of science in any and every way whatsoever.
I was instead simply observing that it is indeed possible to find evidence of intelligent agency in the realm of biology… contra what so many here seem determined to affirm.
If God obliterates His traces as if He never intervened and as if the cosmos were 13.8 gy old whereas in truth it’s 6025, He lies. So as He cannot, science is a delusion, rationality is a delusion and faith is more real than reality.
No one here could possibly deny that. No one does. Intelligent agency in the realm of biology is evidenced in the Chihuahua, the Mexican Hairless, runner beans, Monsanto Glycine max soya, hydrangeas, E. coli and every breed and variety of just about every organism you know. Prior to such intervention there was none whatsoever, ever. Unless, of course, God is a liar.
Thats down to the individual not to science. Science havent and never will prove such thing
If you assume the earth is 6025 years old, sure.
I disagree that we must assume that “God obliterates his traces”. We already understand as engineers that we can have things that do a certain amount of self-construction/self-assembly; the Mars lander for example.
What more impressive system could there be than a self-sustaining multiverse in which intelligent life naturally emerges from it out of self-assembly. One can argue that God doesn’t need to hide anything, it is all in the design. It’s just that it is not built on our nuts and bolts level of thinking but a far higher level of engineering. God is the alpha and omega.
No, it’s if you assume any date other than the natural one or any ID including intervention. There is no engineering, no design, no tweeking.
1 Like
From a scientific standpoint, materialist evolution and evolutionary creationism are the same. It is the need for faith in the latter that is the main difference.
Evolutionary creation isn’t a scientific theory. Evolutionary creationists accept the regular old scientific theory of evolution (along with the rest of consensus science, like the Big Bang model, germ theory, heliocentricity, general relativity) they just understand its significance in light of their faith commitments which include the belief that God is the Creator of all that is. No evolutionary creationist claims that God’s existence can be demonstrated with scientific evidence or that God’s involvement in creation can be studied using the tools of science.
9 Likes
The faith is in the intentionality of the ground of being.
I would say that really sciencecannotproveanything. Science cannotprovethat the COVID -19 vaccine works. Whatit cansay is that it works 95% orsoofthetime. Science cannot provethat tomorrow willcome,only that there isa veryhigh probability that it will come.
Justbecausescience cannotprove something, doesthatmean thatweshouldnot usethehighlyusefultool ofscienticthinking tounderstand ourselvesand ouruniverse? No.
If science can provide information that help us determine if life is good or evil, we should use it. If science demonstrates that we live in a universe that is basically rational and predictable within limits that is good too.
Science can point to the evidence that indicates that the universe is created and evidence that indicates that it was not. People must decide for themselves, but there is no reason that I can think of that we should not discuss the evidence provided by science in making this decision.
Klax, I claim no such “intervention”. The universe is, but God in the end created it all. Natural is simply what is, but that “natural” was created by God.
That’s a faith position Wayne. If God directly created our insignificant universe then He always has created such from eternity. That’s intervention. If He is the unnatural ground [i]of being, that which makes absolute nothingness unstable, being naturally does the rest.
1 Like
Christie: Correct, and your website is quite clear on that. And, lots of people were evolutionary creationists long before the term came into use. Darwin, at least in his younger days, might have been one also. The point is that the ECs do not attack the fundamentals of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, age of the earth, etc., etc. A group in Florida wants the schools to teach Evolution as “Just a Theory.” Wrong on the use of scientific theory, wrong on their understanding of evolution. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the scientific theory that explains it.
4 Likes
Acting on random mutation.