Genuine Questions.

[gluadys]

So, a small challenge to you Bushido. Give me a specific example of something that you believe YEC cannot explain while evolution can. I will attempt to study that specific example, and give you an answer based on the evidence.

Well, you already have two. So I hesitate to add even one more and I have two more.

1. The nested taxonomy.

2. The complete lack of fossils of the following forms of life in Cambrian deposits: all terrestrial life including arthropods, vertebrates, and plants and also the lack of fossils of any jawed fishes.

 

[hesalive]

A person needn't worry about it if they have little education or intelligence, or little time to do such study. What needs to be clear to all is clear to all. Much of the rest can be easily explained once the scholars have done their research. And if there are still obscurities, well they are grist for the scholars, but don't need to concern the average Joe or Jill too much as they are usually about technicalities, not anything very important.

I would like to offer a quote regarding this stance which I find very common among evolutionist and Theistic evolutionists.

"Although they have grown accustomed to scorn from evolutionary scientists, traditional creationists may be unhappy to discover that their own allies (other anti-Darwinians) regard them as poor cousins visiting from the trailer park- sincere but somewhat emabarrassing folk, whose unsophisticated manners and naive beliefs should be kept quietly in the background when others are talking about science."

What is faith without evidence?

Blind faith.

My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith. To tell someone that this is what the Bible teaches is dangerous in my opinion. The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story. What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?

 

[bdfoster]

What is faith without evidence?

Blind faith.

My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith. To tell someone that this is what the Bible teaches is dangerous in my opinion. The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story. What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, nor could there be. It's not a question science can even address. But there are plenty of reasons to believe. The evidence, although not scientific in nature, is so overwhelming that Paul called it proof and said that men are without excuse. Now days most people think of proof as deduction, where the truth of the premise necessitates the truth of the conclusion. But proof really is just convincing evidence. Most convincing, in my opinion is the evidence of testimony, particularly of the apostles and martyrs. These are eyewitnesses who knew if what they preached about Jesus was a lie, and yet died for what they knew was the truth. There is the evidence of fulfilled prophesy. There is the evidence of scripture, the incredible thematic consistency and interconnectedness of passages written in different cultures separated by over a thousand of years. And we really could go on and on.

I really think it's wrong to search for scientific evidence to support God's existence. For one thing, it implies that we need such evidence. What if you don't find it? Jesus tells us not to look for a sign. For another thing it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scope of science. Faith is belief that is not based on evidence.

Brent

 

[lucaspa]

Proves nothing. They also thought it was flat long before Darwin.

However, it does prove that the scientists who disproved a young earth did so from the scientific evidence with nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence.

The papers are where the scientific evidence IS. Don't you understand that? Peer-reviewed primary papers are presentation of evidence. That's where you find the data. So, having 600 papers per month with new data supporting evolution is quite a lot of data for a "bankrupt theory".

Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution.

Not a workable mechanism? What are you talking about? The workable mechanism has been known since Origin. It's called Natural Selection. What has come after shows just how workable the mechanism is in terms of genes, changes in populations, and changes in traits due to changes in genes.

I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.

The Flood was indeed the initial theory used by geology. However, geology showed that the column could not possibly have been deposited by a Flood. That's what went on in geology from about 1790-1820. Layers were found to be impossible to be deposited by a Flood, so the Flood was restricted to fewer and fewer layers. Finally, by 1825 the deposits still thought to be deposited by a Flood were only the topmost gravels and morraines. By 1831 it was shown that even these could not possibly have been deposited by a Flood (most of them were deposited by glaciers). Therefore, there was now no part of the geological column that could be explained by the Flood.

In 1930 George McReady Price attempted to resussitate Flood Geology. His motive was that he needed a Flood to account for the geological column in order to have the young earth demanded by Seventh Day Adventism young earth creationism. Whitcomb and Morris followed in 1961 with The Genesis Flood and made it clear in that book that they needed the Flood to get a young earth.

Since I posted my question I have come across the land bridge theory. I am not convinced yet, as I have not had the time to get into any of the detail of this theory.
It should be noted that evolutionists have the same problem as creationists when it comes to mammal distribution. The fossils of marsupials have been found world wide, therefore there must have been a method of intercontinental travel.

At the time marsupials evolved initially, there was only one continent -- Pangea. Therefore there was no problem of "travel". Once the continents separated, Australia separated before full placental mammals evolved and has been isolated since. So there is no problem for evolution here.

 

[lucaspa]

I would like to offer a quote regarding this stance which I find very common among evolutionist and Theistic evolutionists.

"Although they have grown accustomed to scorn from evolutionary scientists, traditional creationists may be unhappy to discover that their own allies (other anti-Darwinians) regard them as poor cousins visiting from the trailer park- sincere but somewhat emabarrassing folk, whose unsophisticated manners and naive beliefs should be kept quietly in the background when others are talking about science."

That is the case. Despite Phillip Johnson's call for a "big tent" of creationists, the Discovery Institute has little regard for YECs. Of course, YECs have little regard for OECs, as witness the attacks at AiG against Hugh Ross. However, YECs are reluctant to attack IDers such as Behe, Dembski, and Johnson. They find the ID arguments too useful to discredit the people making them.

My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith.

It sounds like you are restricting "evidence" to scientific evidence. However, science is a very limited form of knowing. Science cannot tell you whether atheistic or theistic evolution is correct. Let me emphasize again: Science CANNOT tell you. That's where we come to your statement:

What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?

There is NO scientific evidence that evolution can happen without God. None. Zip. Zilch. That's because we can't do the relevant experiment to see if any of the processes science studies -- including evolution -- can happen without God. It's called methodological materialism or methodological naturalism. Anyone telling you that science shows evolution happens without God is misusing science.

Now, most of our lives use non-scientific evidence. All evidence is personal experience. Science, however, restricts itself to just a subset of personal experience. That is experience that is objective -- outside ourself -- and is intersubjective. That is the fancy term to say that the experience is the same to everyone under approximately the same circumstances. This is often said as experiments are repeatable to anyone.

But all of us live most our lives based on personal experience that is subjective and/or not repeatable by anyone. As BDFoster pointed out, the evidence for God is personal experience. Either that of individual people having a personal relationship with God or the personal experiences of God intervening in history written in the Bible. For someone with that personal experience, it is utterly convincing. Or for someone that trusts the accounts in the Bible.

Now, to someone without that experience or trust, the evidence is not going to be convincing. Don't worry about it. Not everyone is convinced that the Mona Lisa is a great painting or Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a great piece of music. Their personal experience is different.

The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story.

Yes, the atheist can. Up until Darwin discovered natural selection, there was no answer to the Argument from Design. Therefore, it was not intellectually possible to be an atheist. Atheism was quite obviously a faith. Atheism is still a faith. However, natural selection has given the atheist an answer to the Argument from Design. Biological organisms can no longer be viewed as being manufactured artifacts like cars or airplanes. Plants and animals are designed, but designed by the unintelligent process of natural selection. So atheism is now possible. Doesn't mean it's right.

 

[lucaspa]

You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.

What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name.

This doesn't answer our questions as to the source of your information. Are you saying you have done original research into young earth? If so, what is your data? Have you actually gone out and looked at the geological column anywhere? If so, where? What observations led you to conclude it was formed by a Flood.

Now, what we tend to refer you to is the review articles and books. However, these do have citations back to the primary articles that do have the nitty-gritty details of the evidence in the physical universe.

The reason we keep asking, of course, is that it is evidence in the physical universe that falsifies young earth and creationism. Therefore, we are naturally curious about the evidence you say convinced you of young earth creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

I would strongly dispute that. Take for examples the law of relativety, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. These are not assumptions or theoretical explainations these are science (knowledge) proven in full. They are laws.

1. Relativity is not a law; it is a theory. It is the Theory of Relativity.
2. Gravity is a theory. It does incorporate some "laws" of motion.

However, you have to understand that laws are themselves theories.
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."

That's a theory of what will happen under stated circumstances. Now, they are extremely well-supported theories. Supported to the point that we don't really question them anymore unless and until someday the universe does not behave according to them.

Neither evolution or creation can be deemed to be a science in strictly scientific terms because neither of the assumed original conditions are repeatable.

Ah, the old "science is only what is repeatable" argument. Yes, indeed, you have been getting your information from ICR or Dr. Dino.
1. We are not dealing with creation. Creation is the idea that God created the universe. We are dealing with theories of how God created the universe. Creationism is such a theory. Evolution is also a theory on how God created.
2. We don't need the original conditions to be repeatable; we only need evidence we can study today that everyone can see (repeat). Notice that the assumed original conditions of the Flood are not repeatable, but you claim the Flood is part of science. Why? Because you claim we can deduce a Flood from the evidence we can all (repeatable) look at today.

We can only theorise on the cause, but we can test the effects by applying science to the evidence around us.

Thank you for demolishing your previous statement. Just what I said, but in different words. So evolution and creationism are indeed scientific theories because we can test for the effects.

From what I have studied the basic evolutionist model does not fit the evidence, where as the creationist (literal) model does.

The language you are using is Henry Morris' and early ICR. He uses "model" rather than theory. He even has tables supposedly comparing the two "models".

I would like to point out at this point that even if I knew nothing of the theories of creation/evolution, I would believe in creation. Why?

Because I have total faith in Gods word and none in mans understanding.

Errors in both.
1. We aren't talking about "God's word" but about your human, fallible, interpretation of that word. So instead of having faith in God's word, you have faith in you.
2. You just denied that God created. Why? Because you won't accept any evidence from "man's understanding" via science. Yet you said it: what does science study? The physical world. Who created the physical world? God. So science studies God's word. God's second book. But you deny there is a second book, don't you? And to do that you have to deny that God created.

But, for all the gaps and misunderstandings in our knowledge the basic principle of creation has never been disproven.

And what is that "basic principle"?

Evolution is not powered or motivated by any kind of search for true science. It is powered by the desperation of a humanistic society to dismiss God from their existance.

Ah. Here we have it. Evolotion = atheism. Never read Darwin, have you? Tell me, does this sound like Darwin was dismissing God from existence?

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

You didn't happen to notice that you are on a site limited to Christians and we are dealing with theistic evolution, did you? The argument that evolution is an atheist conspiracy isn't going to work well here.

 

[gluadys]

My daughter has for many years fallen away from her Christian beliefs and has finally come to me with a sincere line of question about evidence to support a God. What shall I tell her? The evolutionary story that all things created themself from a big bang till now, or the Theistic evolution story that says the same thing, just that God did it? Whats the difference? Niether one offers anything more than a call to blind faith. To tell someone that this is what the Bible teaches is dangerous in my opinion. The athiest can believe we came by happenstance according to the evolution story. What compelling evidence is there to convince someone that God did it if the evidence is so strong to say it could be done without him?

Unless she raises the issue, don't bring evolution into it at all. It neither supports nor denies the existence of God, so is useless for the purpose of convincing anyone of God's existence. The same can be said for all of science.

The supportive evidence for the existence of God lies in God's people and the testimony they can give of what God has done for them: of lives of despair turned into lives of joy, of lives ruined by alcohol, gambling or drugs turned on to a path of sobriety, of fear, suspicion and anxiety overcome by love, concern and compassion, of a me-first, I-want-it-all attitude turned into generosity and sacrifice for others.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians, tells us that whoever is in Christ is a new creature. Those "new creatures" are the best supportive evidence for the truth of the gospel.

If she does raise the question of evolution, be honest about your own opinion, but be honest enough to admit other Christians have other opinions on the matter, and suggest she investigate that question on her own and develop her own conclusions. It is, after all, not an issue pertinent to salvation.

 

[hesalive]

Unless she raises the issue, don't bring evolution into it at all. It neither supports nor denies the existence of God, so is useless for the purpose of convincing anyone of God's existence.

The basic life question that has been asked long before you or I pondered it is "where did I come from" All other questions and answers decend from this question which has only two possiblities; created or accident. To bypass this is to propose a truth without a foundation. This was my error in raising my daughter. I only conveyed blind faith to her. The results are self evident. A Budist or Muslim can make similar testimonies as to the life changing aspects of their belief in their lives, but what sepparates the truth from the non-truth? Evidence.

 

[ab1385]

OK, Id like to start by saying that Im not a YEC, but I did pick up on the argument about 98.3 DNA similarit betweeb humans and chimps, I don't really think theis is a good anti-YEC argument. Surely we have 98% the same DNA because we are so similar? I mean, if God were to use DNA as the building blocks of life, and He created man and chimps to be physically very similar, then doesn't it stand to reason that our DNA would have been created similar?

I guess I'm just trying to make the point that TE do look at the evidence for YEC before deicding the other way!

The problem with the "science" of YEC, as I see it, is that they set out to prove theological points, not scientific hypotheses based on the scientific evidence. You can't decide that the bible says the earth is young (which is debatable anyway, but thats not the point) and then set out to scientifically prove that. Is biased, you WANT a certain result, and so it is not proper science. If someone completely independent came to the young earth POV then I would be much more likely to be persuaded to their argument.

 

[lucaspa]

The basic life question that has been asked long before you or I pondered it is "where did I come from" All other questions and answers decend from this question which has only two possiblities; created or accident.

There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star.

For atheists, "where did I come from?" is not by accident, but not created by deity, either. Instead, the chemical and evolutionary processes -- natural selection -- are not accidents. They are caused, but not by deity. Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity.

To bypass this is to propose a truth without a foundation. This was my error in raising my daughter. I only conveyed blind faith to her. The results are self evident. A Budist or Muslim can make similar testimonies as to the life changing aspects of their belief in their lives, but what sepparates the truth from the non-truth? Evidence.

Sometimes you don't have sufficient evidence to unequivocally decide the truth. That's why we have hung juries. Right now there is insufficient scientific evidence to decide if the universe was created by a deity or arose by some other means. The evidence you have is either 1) a personal relationship with God or 2) trust that the accounts of the intervention of God in history written in the Bible are accurate. If your daughter does not have a personal relationship or trust the Biblical accounts, then you will have to let her continue to search for the truth.

The best we can do for you is prevent people from misusing science to back atheism.

 

[hesalive]

There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star.[\QUOTE]

Whether from an alien or other it is still creation.

For atheists, "where did I come from?" is not by accident, but not created by deity, either. Instead, the chemical and evolutionary processes -- natural selection -- are not accidents. They are caused, but not by deity. Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity.

Whether by process or accident it is still happenstance.

No point made. The two still remain. All theories are just derivatives of the two.

Sometimes you don't have sufficient evidence to unequivocally decide the truth. That's why we have hung juries. Right now there is insufficient scientific evidence to decide if the universe was created by a deity or arose by some other means. The evidence you have is either 1) a personal relationship with God or 2) trust that the accounts of the intervention of God in history written in the Bible are accurate.

There is a 3).

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Thankyou for your input. None of it goes by without consideration. My discussions with my daughter are encouraging as she is asking for evidence. This is a welcome change from absolute refusal to even consider there may be objective evidence to support faith in God. I would not let the opportunity slip by without testifying to 1 and 2 above as well.

Thanks,
John

 

[artybloke]

"Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity."

Why? If you mix up amino acids in the right way, using the correct proceedure, won't you always get peptides? And if you do to peptides what you need to do to get proteins, won't you always get proteins? Etc... We might not know all the chemical processes involved in getting from amino acids to life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to map it according to purely physical and chemical means, without recourse to a diety to zap-pow a miracle in there.

Chemical processes work according to chemical laws. There's no faith involved.

Personally, I think that God is present in some way in the whole process; but I believe that by faith, not because science tells me that there's a bit for God to do that can't be explained by science. That's no more than the shifting sands of God of the Gaps theology.

 

[lucaspa]

"Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity."

Why? If you mix up amino acids in the right way, using the correct proceedure, won't you always get peptides? And if you do to peptides what you need to do to get proteins, won't you always get proteins? Etc... We might not know all the chemical processes involved in getting from amino acids to life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to map it according to purely physical and chemical means, without recourse to a diety to zap-pow a miracle in there.

Yes, you don't have recourse to a zap-pow "miracle", but saying God can only work by zap-pow miracles is god-of-the-gaps theology. God doesn't have to work that way.

Chemical processes work according to chemical laws. There's no faith involved.

However, there is faith that the chemical processes work in the absence of God. Here we go again. Back to Butler:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Now, tell me how you know, by science, that Butler is wrong.

not because science tells me that there's a bit for God to do that can't be explained by science.

What science says is that you can't know, by science, that God is absent from what is explained by science! The question is: do any of the processes studied by science work in the absence of God?

That's no more than the shifting sands of God of the Gaps theology.

What you have in "zap-pow miracle" is god-of-the-gaps. What I am saying is that there are no gaps. That is, there is no gap in the material component of the explanation. But rather, God is necessary for all the material processes to work. No gaps. But complete presence of God.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa "There are more than two possible answers. That was one of the things that sunk YEC in the 1982 Arkansas Trial -- the witness for creationism gave another possibility. In that case, it was that biological organisms come from infusion of new DNA that comes from space -- panspermia. Raelians have another answer to "were did I come from?". For Raelians, we were bioengineered by an alien species from another planet orbiting another star."
Whether from an alien or other it is still creation.

It is? You equate manufacture by a mortal being to "creation" by God?

There is a 3).

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Ah, but this is a problem. When Paul wrote that it was true. Paul was using the Argument from Design. However, the discovery of natural selection sank the Argument from Design as "proof" of God. No longer was it "clearly seen". Natural selection did not sink God, but did sink the "clearly seen".

My discussions with my daughter are encouraging as she is asking for evidence. This is a welcome change from absolute refusal to even consider there may be objective evidence to support faith in God. I would not let the opportunity slip by without testifying to 1 and 2 above as well.

What are you trying to give her as "objective" evidence? If you try to give her creationist "evidence", you will lose her again.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: "For atheists, "where did I come from?" is not by accident, but not created by deity, either. Instead, the chemical and evolutionary processes -- natural selection -- are not accidents. They are caused, but not by deity. Of course, they have to have faith that the processes will happen in the absence of deity."

Whether by process or accident it is still happenstance.

I don't see that. For instance, gravity causing an avalanche is not happenstance. It is inevitable and the results are predictable.

Similarly, dry heating amino acids and adding water will produce living protocells. It's not "happenstance". It's caused by the properties of the amino acids and the possible reactions they can undergo and the properties of the proteins formed from the reaction.

Or let's look at another example. You are driving down an icy road in your car and lose control. You call it an "accident" because you didn't intend for it to happen. But it is neither happenstance nor accident in terms of physics. It is caused and inevitable in terms of friction, momentum, and the laws of motion.

Similarly, the cause of the universe may not be an intelligent entity -- God. But that doesn't make it "happenstance" or "accident". At the most it makes the universe "unintended by an intelligent entity".

 

[lucaspa]

OK, Id like to start by saying that Im not a YEC, but I did pick up on the argument about 98.3 DNA similarit betweeb humans and chimps, I don't really think theis is a good anti-YEC argument. Surely we have 98% the same DNA because we are so similar? I mean, if God were to use DNA as the building blocks of life, and He created man and chimps to be physically very similar, then doesn't it stand to reason that our DNA would have been created similar?

No. Because
1. there are number of different forms of every protein that will do just as good a job. For instance, most species have different forms of cytochrome c with different amino acid (and thus different DNA base) sequences. There is no need for an intelligent designer to have the same base sequence.
2. Even worse, the 98.3% figure comes from pseudogenes. That is, genes that are not expressed! So, since they are not involved in our being similar, there is no need for the pseudogenes to be similar.

I guess I'm just trying to make the point that TE do look at the evidence for YEC before deicding the other way!

Already done. Remember, YEC was the accepted scientific theory from 1700 - 1820 and special creation was still the accepted theory in 1859. So, scientists had already considered the theory and then found data to falsify it. Origin is filled with comparing evidence to special creation and showing the evidence makes no sense under special creation. As just one example, special creation has creatures made to fit their environment. But Darwin found a woodpecker on the pampas hundreds of miles from any tree! Why would a rational creator make a woodpecker where there are no trees?

The problem with the "science" of YEC, as I see it, is that they set out to prove theological points, not scientific hypotheses based on the scientific evidence.

That's modern YEC. But the original YECers were testing scientific hypotheses. Testing them so well that they falsified them. Modern YEC looks the way it does because YEC is already a falsified scientific theory. So modern YEC can't use science.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:

Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)

Since they want Creationism taught in public schools, contemporary Creationists cannot present their view as based on religious faith. On the other hand, the doctrine is too dear to be subjected to the possibility of outright defeat. What is wanted, then, is a version of Creationism that is not vulnerable to refutation, but that appears to enjoy the objective status that can only be conferred by evidential support. This is an impossible demand. A theory cannot drink at the well of evidential support without running the risk of being poisoned by future data. What emerges from the conflict of goals is the pseudoscience promulgated by the Institute for Creation Research. It is vaguely suggested that the central Creationist idea could be used to solve some problems. But the details are never given, the links to nature never forged. Oddly, "scientific" Creationism fails to be a science not because of what it says (or, in its "public school" editions, very carefully omits) about a Divine Creator, but because of what it does not say about the natural world. The theory has no infrastructure, no ways of articulating its vague central idea, so that specific features of living forms can receive detailed explanations. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126