Jerry Avins wrote:
> I see a difference between a creationist who is a scientist and the
> doctrine of Scientific Creationism; don't you? It seems to me that
> creationism, evolution, astrology, theism, and atheism are all matters
> of faith.
Faith and being a scientist has some inherent contradiction. It depends on
the science, though. You can be mathematican and have faith; this doesn't
lead to contradiction, since math also bases on assumed truths (axioms),
and conclusions are only testable against these truths. Empirical sciences
make it much more difficult to have faith, since you test your theories
against the real world, not against other thoughts.
> Any can have their inner logic explored in a scientific way.
> None can be established by argument without begging the question.
> Scientific Creationists believe that logic alone establishes the
> correctness of their view; that's their silliness.
>> Two fallacies cloud these discussions: the argument from disbelief (I
> can't believe it, so there's no way it's true) and the argument from
> splendid ignorance (I don't see another explanation, so it must be
> true). Both fallacies are the same at their core, stemming (it seems to
> me) from arrogance.
The creationist view is a lot deeper than merely basing on "logic". They
explain by adding a magical element. "I can't explain how it happend, so it
must have happend by magic." Now failing to explain how this magic works
shows that there's nothing achieved at all: creationists say in effect that
they do not understand at all how life came into being and developed
afterwards. This is in contrast to other, testable theories, which provide
some (but certainly not complete) understanding of how life developed.
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"