Originally posted by Outspoken [lucaspa]
"Methodological materialism has nothing to do with any possible flaws or lack of data in an specific theory."
Untrue with your application. Science cannot deal, nor produce, a correct theory when the supernatural is involved. why? Its not the right tool for the job.
Then you have just declared that creationism cannot be a correct. Creationism proposes a scientific theory of how the supernatural created. It proposes a specific age of the universe, a specific sequence of the appearance of objects in the universe, and a specific relationship between biological organisms.
What methodologica materialism can't do is tell you whether the material causes of science are the only causes. That is, it can't tell you whether or not deity sustains the universe. Or, as Gould put it: "science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."
Now, science can tell you whether the material causes are sufficient as material causes. Thus, science can tell you that God didn't have to manufacture each species separately. Instead, evolution by natural selection is quite sufficient to produce species. But is God necessary in order for evolution by natural selection to work? Science can't address that.
"Take the rotational energy and transfer that to the motion of the molecules that make up the earth. You end up with motions of the molecules that correspond to a couple of thousand degrees centigrade."
You're assuming tons of other factors remained constant.
And what is your evidence that they weren't constant? At the equator, the rotational speed of the earth is 1000 miles per hour or 16.67 miles per minute. Translate that speed to random motion of molecules and calculate the heat involved.
"Covering up that consequence (hiding God's action) is actually covering up the miracle by another one so that it appears that God did not act. That is deception."
Science would say the cancer just wasn't there before or something to that effect.
In this instance, science says "we don't know". What happened to the cancer? We don't know. There are a lot of hypotheses. You listed one: it was never there. Another one is that deity zapped the cancer away. Still another is that the immune system was able to deal with the cancer after chemotherapy. Science has insufficient data to tell which hypothesis is correct.
What you are doing is god-of-the-gaps. Don't have a scientific answer? Well, then, insert God! Of course, what happens when later data fills the gap? What happens to God? Which is why you are faced with rejecting the data. But the fault is not science's, but your theology.
Instead of proposing that God created by your literal interpretation of Genesis, propose instead that God created the universe by the BB, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution. Now you have all the scientific data you could possibly want in support of God. Of course, it is also possible that the processes happen by themselves, but here methodological materialism won't show that God is absent, either.
"My language is telling it like it is. "
No, you're actually using loaded language.
Its not a moral issue and I find it pretty funny that you're trying to turn it into one being that you're an evolutionist yourself.
Science isn't a moral issue. There I agree. However, creationism isn't good theology, either. Creationism isn't the "for God" position it is often portrayed as being. Rather, creationism is the most dangerous idea facing Christianity, with the ability to destroy Christianity by falsely making Christianity falsifiable and falsified by science.
Not sure the about the logics involved there. I would describe it as God LIMITING himself. Example: God being not all knowing. Christ limited himself to the knowledge he had when on earth. Did he know nuclear physics? Nope. Could he have? Yes.
