You have restated my question as "Do individuals who believe in God the Creator have any right to debate in a scientific forum." I must say that does not accurately reflect my position. First, anyone has the right to debate any position in an honest forum and I never meant to imply otherwise. Whether a deistic position can be effectively defended is another question.
My question is a much narrower one. What I am asking is how a position that is only believable by an act of faith can be defended by a system that uses a completely different paradigm? How can the creationist reasonably try to use the standards of science (which are valid in their context) for part of their position and then use faith (also valid in it’s context) for other parts? In any case, at this time I feel that before we can further address my main question, we must address a point you have raised.
First, for clarity I will define my terms:
Science is that body of theory arrived at by the classical method of observation, hypothesis and testing, and subject to verifiability, repeatability and falsification.
Creationism is the belief that at some point, some intelligence engaged in some act of creation that resulted in the world as we see it today.
Faith is the act of believing as fact a thing that is not provable by human knowledge or science.
Supernatural refers to any event or entity whose existence is inexplicable by human knowledge or science.
I am aware that a necessary corollary to these definitions is that a supernatural thing is believable only by faith, but I believe that to be reasonable. Please feel free to take issue with my definitions. We must agree on what we are discussing to have an effective exchange. On the presumption that my definitions will be accepted and subject to being challenged, I proceed.
My original question, which I may have been unclear on, is perhaps best stated as follows. I argue:
1. Belief in creationism is a question of faith.
2. Science does not address questions of faith.
3. Therefore, science does not address creationism.
The challenge was concerning how creationists respond to this line of reasoning. You have responded quite properly by questioning my first assertion.
In your response, you state in reference to creationism, Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. From context, you are claiming that it is possible to remove the supernatural from creationism, thus removing the need for an act of faith. That would successfully counter my argument by voiding my first assertion but I am afraid I must take issue. Specifically, I maintain that creationism does include the supernatural. I also note as a side issue that a corollary to your statement is that if creationism does include the supernatural, then it would not be science.
I assert that for creationism to be true there must be a creator and an act of creation. Without them, creationism has nothing to say. They are essential to the concept. That act of creation, be it a single act of creating a clockwork universe or a series of smaller, directing interventions, cannot be explained or understood unless one takes the position that through science or human knowledge man can come to know the nature of god. I believe that such an idea runs directly contrary to all commonly accepted concepts of creator deities. Therefore, the act of creation is supernatural and acceptance that it occurred is an act of faith.
To restate my current argument concisely, made in support of my first assertion:
1. Creationism inherently implies both a creator and an act of creation.
2. Science cannot explain the creator or his actions.
3. Therefore, science cannot explain creationism.
4. Therefore, creationism is supernatural.
5. Therefore, by definition, accepting creationism requires an act of faith.
I look forward to any responses.
™ Version 4.2