theyeti

Check the bottom of your second post.

theyeti

To pitch in my views on this, this is certainly a possible approach and is one taken by some theists. However, the goal of science is to explain phenomena with detectable causes (i.e. natural causes) because it is only these things that we can objectively choose between with the scientific method. Causes which cannot be detected, and are not regular (which is implicit in the defintion of supernatural) are simply not amenable to scientific discourse, because we have no objective method of choosing between them. And because we have no method of objectively exploring them, supernatural causes lack explanatory power; they are necessarily ad hoc, and thus not very informative.

I personally think that we will eventually be able to explain all of life and the universe with natural causes, but this is just my opinion, and is partially based on the fact that I find such a situation more appealing. But even if I am wrong about that, all this will mean is that we've reached the limits of what science can tell us. At that point, the creationist is perfectly welcome to claim "goddidit", but scientifically speaking, this claim is no more valid than "we don't know". The recourse to an undetectable deity is no better than the recourse to an undiscovered natural law -- neither has evidence. This is precisely what the ID movement can't seem to get through it's ideologically thickened skull.

A much more enlightened approach that most theistic evolutionists take is that God is omni-present and responsible for all that goes on in the universe, evolution and everything. Accordingly, their is no contradiction between a universe run by natural law and one run by God. Thus, they take God's existance and the meaning he imparts to the universe on faith, which I heard somewhere is actually supposed to be an important part of Christianity. The creationists, on the other hand, are eschewing faith for scientific "proof", and are thus commiting blasphemy of a sorts. Believe it or not, creationists piss-off theologians almost as much as they do scientists.

theyeti

Godless Dave

I totally beleive it. Biblical literalism and Biblical inerrancy are bad theology. They stake their whole religious belief on the Bible being the literal, inerrant word of God. Since it's easy to show that the Bible is not inerrant and that it was written and assembled by human beings, the whole edifice of their faith is standing on feet of clay. Regular Christians don't base their entire faith on such a simplistic, easily refutable belief, so their faith can withstand a lot more scrutiny.

Undercurrent

In order to be science, a statement has to be a lot more that "viable." There has to be actual evidence that the statement is actually true. "Possible", or "never been proven false" doesn't cut it.

m.

DieToDeath

Michael: Well, by that same argument evolution doesn't cut it.. because there isn't 100% perfect proof. Of course there's much more proof for evolution than creationism, but all that proves is that evolution is truer, not that it's THE solution.

Liquidrage

science doesn't deal in absolutes.

We don't argue over the sun rising tomorrow but it is not a 100% certainty.

The internet works pretty well despite the fact that the data stream has the possibility of appearing in horsehead nebula.

When there's enough evidence for something arguing aginst becomes fruitless.

queue

Originally posted by DieToDeath
It would be just as viable that 2 gods created the Earth, or 3 gods, or 4 gods, or a million gods. I think the YECs do not want to go this route because there is not anything showing that the christian god would be the only one responsible for the creation of the Earth.

They do have this collection of myths that say the christian god created the Earth in 6 days and the ages of some of the people in the myths. So the YEC's can point to the collection of myths and say "See, my proof is in this book." Where if they venture from that book, then they are lost and have nothing to back up what they want to believe. Even if physical evidence shows that they are incorrect.

Secular Pinoy

Yet Michael wasn't saying that it be 100% accurate (Or I hope he isn't). Such non sequiturs to set up a straw man! To explain his point further, it's not enough to say it's possible, for logical possibilities are near endless. Flying pigs can fly, since the concept is not self-contradictory.

Nor would the argument never been proven false be good either. It's just a blatant form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Invisible Pink Unicorns have not been proven to be false, so is it true by default?

Sciece seeks not the Truth© (if it's even possible) but an ever so closer approximation of the reality we see around us (personally, I take the real world to be the Truth).

DieToDeath

I feel overmatched here, so I'll just agree with you. I don't know. The thing is, there's really no way to prove it conclusively one way or another. It could be argued by the creationists (and I'm surprised it hasn't been) that the theory of evolution and all that is simply derived from looking at the aftermath of "god's" creation. What I'm trying to say is that there may never be a sure way to know. So, 'til that possible day in the future when there will be, it's all belief.

Lizard

Science doesn't rule out the possibility that some unknown power or intelligence, natural or supernatural, may be the *ultimate* cause of everything. It simply has no methods for dealing with the question at all.

All science does is describe physical reality and make certain predictions, based on observations and inferences from those observations and knowledge of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Whatever might have started the whole thing, or whatever might be guiding it at a level that's not detectable by science, is, well, outside the bailiwick of science.

It seems so simple, but creationists want to make science either (a) a tool of the Devil promoting atheism; or (b) a tool of religion, proving there is a God. Science is much more modest than either of these. It is more like auto mechanics than philosophy.