GPLindsey

I understand that scientists--REAL scientists--follow a general rule of thumb that the simplist theory using the fewest assumptions is usually the best (Is it called Occam's Razor?).

I know creationists are bound by one huge assumption that the Bible is correct, and that their theories must jive with what the Bible says. Creationists also allow for Divine intervention as a component of their theories. My question: do Creation scientists also follow a general rule of thumb that their theories must use only a minimum number of miracles, and that everything that can be explained by natural laws must be?

I ask this because I often read creationist arguments that seem to stretch and twist natural laws to the point of absurdity, whereas they use God as the explanation for other things. For example, I think creationists generally say that God caused the animals to be brought to the Ark through a miracle (Noah didn't spend years roaming the world capturing the animals--he was too busy building the Ark). Yet on other questions--such as how fresh water aquatic animals survived the mixing of fresh and salt water in a global flood--creationists go through this tortured exercise of theorizing how pockets of fresh water can be sustained in such a flood within the confines of natural law. Why bother? Why not just say that God willed the fresh and salt water apart during the flood?

Do creation scientists have some sort of credo that they must explain things using natural laws first--no matter how distorted or nutty or illogical the explanation--before turning to Divine Miracles to pull their theories out of the fire? I've checked some creationist web sites and haven't found any guiding principles on this issue, but I'm curious if anyone else has come across something on this.

SEF

Good point. I don't think they'd ever admit it enough (to themselves or to others) to actually state it as a principle, but they do indeed seem to tie themselves in knots trying to justify ridiculous things without a miracle.

I think one cause of it has to be that at least some part of them admires science and wishes they could do it properly too. Then there's the obvious realisation that no-one takes them seriously and presumably the hope that people might take them more seriously if they were to minimise the requirement for miracles in their beliefs. This is very much linked to the way other pseudoscientists such as homeopaths are desperate to gain credibility and con more people by incorporating as much stolen technobabble as possible. That's often on the level of the individual rather than any hierarchical organisation though as the top-level may know it is all dishonest anyway and prefer to just peddle their placebos without being required to justify anything. Then again the church has been fairly hard at times on restricting what is called a miracle too - sometimes because they don't like the apparent miracle worker (eg Joan of Arc) or just because they don't want to have to retract claims later.

Charlie Marlow

What I found interesting about a long debate I had with an ardent creationist with regard to the flood myth was that if I accepted his arguments, then I would have accepted that there is no need of his god anyway. They sometimes forget that the whole point of a miracle is to show the power of their god, and if the miracle can be explained without the need to invoke any deity, then it's not much of a miracle.

Albion

In order to get creation "science" taught in school as a genuine science rather than as promotion of religion, they have to make their version (young Earth, global flood) appear to be consonant with the results of the scientific method. If they resort to explaining things simply - or even largely - on the basis of a parade of miracles, then even Antonin Scalia won't be able to say they're just giving a scientific alternative to evolution. Probably some of them do have in mind the notion of science lessons that are little more than prayers and Bible readings and praising Jesus for his creative miracles, but I assume they realise that this isn't going to work in the short term.

SEF

The IDiots are only one set of creationists trying that as an organised deliberate ploy though. The tendency to reach for ridiculous "explanations" is already there in individuals - observable in partially brain-washed kids from about the age of 5. It takes a lot more brain-washing to turn them into old-fashioned monks and nuns who believe and worship without trying to justify anything at all. Perhaps the US hasn't got any of those because the place is too young. The UK is probably running out of replacement ones as fewer people are willing to commit to the length of brain-washing required. I don't know about Europe but I would guess Italy and Spain might have more.

scombrid

Tortured naturalistic explanations are an attempt to legitimize their extraordinary claims to themselves and to their audience.

As for Occam's razor, I've actually had it argued to me that "Poof, Goddidit!" is the most parsimonious and therefore most correct answer. That argument ignores several violated assumptions but I got a kick out of it none-the-less.

espritch

Pseudo science in general has an odd love-hate relationship with real science. One the one hand, pseudo-scientists of all stripes recognize that real science has been very successful and success breeds respect. So making their own theories seem as scientific as possible is a way to trade on that respect. On the other hand, they also know that really applying valid science to their theories would demonstrate that those theories are pure nonsense. So they also find it necessary to attack real science by declaring that establishment scientists don't accept their theory because they are narrow minded and hide bound or are actually conspiring to hide the truth (creationists employee both tactics).

As far as where they draw the line between pseudo-scientific and miraculous explanations, it is basically a matter of which best suites their purpose. If they can find a "scientific" sounding explanation that matches their pre-conceived beliefs, well and good. If not, that just proved it must have been a miracle. In short, posit naturalistic explanations for anything you can and employee miracles as theoretical putty to fill in the gaps and keep the whole tortured structure from collapsing on itself.

DMB

It's really just another variant of the "god of the gaps". After all, once upon a time, before there was a theory of electricity, thunderbolts were personally hurled by an angry god. Earthquakes were a personal shaking of a huge rug, and so on.

Nowadays, even creationists don't usually claim that their god is directly responsible for all natural disasters, although some think that HIV is a direct curse from a god.

Jayjay

This is not such a good example, because Genesis specificly says that God will send the animals to Noah (it also says that God ordered Noah to bring some animals himself, but that's besides the point) but it says nothing about fresh water and salt water. Thus, creationists are free to come up with whatever crackpot explanation they want for the latter without A) compromising the Bible or B) making it necessary to say that things must have happened exactly like they say they did.

To answer your question, I think the unwritten (until now) rules are as follows:

1) If the Bible says that God did something, then it's a miracle.
2) If it doesn't say that God did something, but if that something was crucial to God's goals and contradicts mainstream science, then it's a mirable.
3) If it doesn't say that God did something, but that something is an ordinary event, then it's a conincidence (but in this case there's likely to be no argument anyway).
4) If it doesn't say that God did something, and that something is irrelevant in the sense that things could've happened differently (e.g. the salt water thing), then it can be explained with pseudoscience.
4.1) If the pseudoscientific explanation is silly enough to hinder propaganda, then it's a miracle.
5) If it doesn't say that God did something, and that something cannot have been done by God due to theological implications (such as deadly diseases evolving after the fall), then a pseudoscientific babble is the only way.

Did I miss any?

Anyway, creationism is essentially an evangelical effort: whatever brings more converts (or more often, strengthens the faith of believers) is okay. Truthfulness of an argument is not an issue for creationists, only its effectiveness to their target audience. Any list of "rules" we may identify are subject to this goal.