Real creation science

Engineering is only a part of it, for it limits the randomness factor by tolerance.

Actually, some problems are solved by evolutionary methods these days–I’ll see if I can’t dig up some kind of article.

What amazes me to no end is that the typical view of Creationism presumes that there can only be a Stupid Creator. In other words, God must be so dumb that He couldn’t have created a system of evolution., therefore there is no God. WTF? “Evolution vs. Creation” debates always make the ignorant assumption that there cannot be a “creator” (Christian God or not) because evolution is known to exist. I’m not going to deny that evolution is a proven fact, but I will say that “Creation” is an entirely separate issue. The debate should be “Evolution vs. Non-Evolution” to which we already know the answers. An entirely separate debate would be “Creation vs. Non-Creation.” People need to stop confusing unrelated issues.

It’s kind of like saying “if God meant for man to fly, He’d have given him wings,” and then concluding that the existence of airplanes disproves the existence of God. That is what I call unscientific. Science could never disprove the existence of God (or prove it), because it would require a blatant physical manifestation of God which would be un-God-like (or impossible if there is no God). So the closest answer that science could get would be “inconclusive.” The rest is simply matter of opinion.

Here’s one.

While that may be the case for some such debates, in most cases the crux of such evolutionary debates (and one that still incites hardcore Creationists) is that a Divine Creator is not required for the process to function.

It is not a matter of proving or disproving God. It is a matter of coming up with an explanation that is independent of God. If He exists, then there should be no problem (unless He chooses to continually alter natural processes, in which case we might expect some evidence of such); the explanation should still hold. If God does not exist, then clearly any explanation invoking Him is flawed. Since the existence of God, by His very nature, is unprovable, to achieve any sort of understanding of the natural world, He must be removed from the equation, so to speak.

Any sort of “creation science” must start with the assumption that God exists. Obviously, this means that if God does not exist, then any theories based on this premise are out the window. However, even if God exists, another assumption which must be made is that His Divine Handiwork can be detected. In this case, if God does exist, but does not tinker, the theories are out the window again.

Starting with the premise that The Hand of God is unnecessary for observed phenomena to occur, it seems to me much simpler to explain said phenomena from a naturalistic approach, rather than a supernaturalistic approach.

That’s one of the ones I had in mind, but couldn’t find. Thanks for digging that up.