Evolutionists: Can you even imagine how we could find scientific evidence of creation?.?

Question

What would be acceptable evidence? The Cambian explosion implies design but does not confirm it. Michael Behe's irriducibly complex systems question evolution but will never offer a scientific "mechanical" method of design.

How could we possibly scientifically observe or empirically imply the act of creation?

All we can ever do is look to the impossibilities of life occuring without guidance or design.

What do you think we'll just run accross God's engineering drawings and construction plan? How could we possibly understand God's method of creation when it's outside the boundaries and possibilities of that which was created?

"Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces"

Why not?

Answer 1

For a start there is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist', sigh.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about when you refer to the Cambrian (note the r) explosion?

Michael Behe was destroyed by a high-court Judge (A lawyer for pity's sake) earlier in the year, a believing Christian no less.

Scientific evidence of Creation would be easy to find if in fact there was a creation, there isn't any evidence because there was no creation, got that?

And for every one Professor you can quote I can find 100 others who take the opposite view.

Edit:

And just in case this is a genuine question (very low probability), the so-called Cambrian Explosion is a term coined by Gould and Lewontin to sell their idea of punctuated equilibrium, in that evolution proceeds by leaps (and very slow leaps to be sure) rather than at a constant rate and that most of the time species are in evolutionary stasis lasting for as long as hundreds of millions of years.

Their evidence was primarily but not exclusively a collection of fossils (yes fossils!) found in the Burgess Shale that suggested many new species formed over as short a time period as 30 Million years!!

whether or not you accept their ideas and evidence it isn't really all that earth shattering and Dawkins for one explains why they are attacking a straw man and why there isn't really very much new to be contributed to evolutionary theory from these observations.

Got that?

Answer 2

The Cambrian explosion and the rise of rapidly changing segmented creatures implies the evolution of the homeobox gene.

Given the vastness of the oceans (upon which the Bible comments) and the vast timescales (half a billion years is an almost inconceivable amount of time), the improbability of life evolving is cancelled.

By theological definition, finding a fingerprint from the "invisible hand of God" is an experimental impossibility. Evolution will not offer a design as it is undirected. It is the process whereby better configurations succeed an lesser ones fade away. Despite this, you choose rhetoric over fact.

Answer 3

I would expect the next thing creationists (IDers) will come up with will be the "inexaminable, unquestionable, creation event evidence". That should end all arguments and objections to it's being 'THE EVIDENCE' we've been looking for. After all, it will be inexaminable, thus eliminating the need to examine it and it will equally be unquestionable, obviating the need to question its authority. Behe or some creationist proponent will no doubt write a book about it and these writings will then be quoted by any and all who wish to suplant actual scientific findings with what 'they believe' to be true. Why bother with looking for data in the real world when all you have to do is "say" it is so?

Answer 4

You have to understand that creation is based on faith alone. Think about it. Is it not possible that God made the universe. I don't think that there is a way to prove creation, but there is no way to disprove it because of it's very nature. For example: God could have made the universe and made everything is such a way that no evidence is left. After all He is God and can do anything. I'm trying to show you how a christian looks at it. Evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Answer 5

Creationism and ID cannot be falsified, therefore, they cannot even be addressed scientificially.

Science, indeed, all knowledge, must rest on three axioms:

1. Math and logic are valid -- if logic is invalid, there can be no proof at all, even given infinite axioms.
2. Observations, direct or aided, are valid; the aid must be logically demonstratable -- if our senses cannot be trusted or the tools cannot be trusted, we can never apply math or logic because we can never accept stability and existence.
3. The supernatural, if it exists at all, does not interfere with the natural, observable universe -- if it did, we could never consider anything permanent; that deity that's making gravity work today may decide tomorrow to change how it works.

Without these three assumptions/axioms, humanity can NEVER know anything at all, scientific or otherwise. Since Creationism and ID require dispensing with #3, we cannot consider them valid and still know anything.

Answer 6

That's way easier to imagine than string theory. Or chaos theory. If there is scientific evidence of creation, it will be found, argued about, and eventually accepted. Yes, it will take awhile. That's how science works and why it works so well.

Until then, how about you cease and desist from creating these imaginary creatures you call 'evolutionists'? It's a theory, not a religion.

Answer 7

I don't see it as an issue-creationism is for theologists and can contribute nothing to the understanding of the natural world. Science can ignore it-it means nothing.

Answer 8

Would you like to see the picture we humans took of the beginning of the universe?

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0217/

Answer 9

If you we definitive answers, would we chose not to believe them anyway?