Creationist model

You have no model. You have no law. You haven't a clue as to what is meant by "model" and "law" in science. You have no evidence. You don't even understand the meaning of the word "evidence".

No faith is required."Real" is just a word. It means what people determine it to mean.Science studies what science studies. If people want to use "real" for what science studies, they are free to do that. If people (anti-realists, for example) want to withhold the term "real" from what scientists study, that is up to them. Science will continue to study it, regardless of whether it is called "real".Philosophers argue about what is "real". Scientists mostly try to stay outside of that argument. Primarily, science is pragmatic.

---

Let's end the political smears

These are really questions for philosophy, rather than science.Among the positions considered by philosophy are:Solipsism: we, and the world, are figments of our own imagination.Idealism: the world we experience is made out of our ideas. Perception somehow pops these ideas into our heads. George Berkeley (bishop Berkeley) famously argued for idealism.Constructivism: The world is our construct. There are different versions of constructivism, with Piaget's constructive epistemology being quite different from social constructivism.Realism: the world is real. There are different versions of realism, too. According to naive realism, the world is real and is about how we see it. According to anti-realism, some scientific entities are not real and we can only be sure of what we see with our own two eyes.The general view among philosophers seems to be that we really cannot determine which of solipsism, idealism or realism is true, though most modern philosophers are realists of one kind or another.None of this matters a lot to scientists. They are mostly pragmatists. Scientists tend to be realist, but mainly because assuming some form of realism provides a better methodoligical basis for their scientific studies. Some scientists are anti-realist.

---

Let's end the political smears

I have never seen a scientist define "objective reality."I am not aware of any scientific theory that uses "objective reality" as a technical term within the theory. Science only needs to define its technical terms.

---

Let's end the political smears

Scientist could continue doing their science without ever using the expression "objective reality."My television works using the electromagnetic waves generated by the TV station transmitter. Or may it is the photons emitted by the TV station transmitter. The display tube works with an electron gun that shoots electrons at the screen to make the phosphors glow.Okay, so maybe electromagnetic waves are not real. Maybe photons are not real. Maybe electrons are not real. Maybe they are nothing more than fictitious inventions by scientists to fit their explanations.It's just a fact that television works. Its just a fact that my computer works. It's just a fact that the internet works.Whether or not electromagnetic waves, photons, electrons are real or fictions, things still work. And that's why I say that science is pragmatic. It's concern is with procedure (such as how to run a television transmitter, or how to analyze biochemical reactions). What counts as "objective reality" isn't all that important. What are effective and useful procedures is important.

---

Let's end the political smears

That isn't really a debate.Let me fill it out for you The two of you mean different things by "reality", so it isn't clear that there is any disagreement, other than over what should be the preferred meaning.

---

Let's end the political smears

This has never been proven.Even if your assertion is correct, that does not contradict idealism. For, according to idealism, your car is only an idea, energy is an idea, you are an idea.

---

Let's end the political smears

The universe always was.Where is the problem?

---

Let's end the political smears

It looks rather disorderly to me. So you claim. But you present no basis for this, other than circular arguments and your own beliefs.

---

Let's end the political smears

I'm not sure where you think I made such a claim. I know you only through your posts at evcforum. And since your posts mainly seem confused and incoherent, that would mean that I surely don't know you at all well. Science is based on evidence - evidence that is repeatable in the sense that others can check it. Science is not based on personal reminiscences.

---

Let's end the political smears

That's a philosophical assertion. It is not a law of science. Okay. But that's an empirical law, well supported by the evidence. But it still could turn out to be mistaken. That's not a scientific law, and in fact is false. That's questionable, because "something" is quite vague. Where did the "God" come from. It does not appear in your earlier "laws". The way logic works, is that you start with agreed premises, and then make deductions from those premises. You seem to be smuggling in an additional assumption. That's faulty logic. Why? You have not given any evidence or reasoning that could support such a claim. I just love that "begging". It was probably a typo, but your argument amounts to begging the question. You are smuggling in unstated premises, and your conclusion is just those premises. The only thing that is sound around here is my laughter at the inanity of your "evidence".

---

Let's end the political smears

And yet that is just what we see in the natural world.A computer requires central direction.
An automobile requires central direction.Yet your immune system works well without central direction.
Your brain works well with no central direction.
A pack of wolves can hunt cooperatively with no central direction.The conclusion ought to be clear: Designed things required central direction; evolved things do not require central direction.All of the evidence from the natural world contradicts the intelligent design hypothesis.

---

Let's end the political smears