Hello Astrophile.
Thanks for your input.
I think that the problem is that you are comparing apples with oranges. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and it is, like all scientific theories, vulnerable to being disproved by new evidence.
Science is an ideology, mankind is fixated with ideology.
It is not so much that the theory of evolution lacks the key evidence. It is more so, that the scientific pursuit is fast becoming so incredibly complex, that we don't even understand the results of the scientific experiments (Hadron Collider).
However, the rival idea, namely the belief in supernatural creation by a God
No rivalry at all, between an idea that an observation can reveal truth, and the revelation of the truth. Not so much apples and oranges, rather chalk and cheese. One is an idea that a Greek philosopher Leucippus, had in the past (indivisible particles). The other was the revelation of God in human form. One is an idea, the other is not an idea. No comparison is possible between idea and revelation.
one is not a scientific theory, since there is no way in which it can be tested, nor can it be falsified, even in principle. God could have created the universe in six days, with varved sediments, fossils embedded in the rocks, white dwarf stars, supernova remnants, and all the other evidence of a long history, already present. There is no possible way of disproving this idea, therefore it is not a scientific theory.
Exactly what I previously stated, a revelation is not an ideology.
Only ideas can be evaluated in the realm of human thought. The idea that observation reveals truth, is an assumption. We cannot know whether any ideology will lead to any truth statement. One needs to be a believer, to believe in any idea, one needs to be a believer in observation, to be a scientist.
If the theory of evolution were to be disproved, it would be replaced by a new scientific theory based on natural processes, equally vulnerable to disproof by new evidence, and, presumably, equally unacceptable to creationists. It would not be replaced by a theory of supernatural creation by a God. Thus, if the theory of evolution were to be disproved, creationists would still be in the same position that they are in now.
If science makes any claim, then the onus is on science to prove the claim. If science cannot prove evolution, then science cannot make the claim in the first place. Mathematics is a pure ideology, axioms are established in mathematics, axioms are not assumptions. Mathematics can contains proofs using axioms, science makes assumptions not axioms, science cannot prove theoretical statements.
Of course, other scientific theories, such as the theories of electromagnetism, thermodynamics, stellar dynamics, and elementary particle physics, are just as susceptible to disproof by new evidence as the theory of evolution.
Your missing the point, increasing knowledge delivers an increasing awareness of the alarming increase in complexity in science. I do believe science is pushing the limitations of the human intellect in the endeavor to understand space time.
Astrophysics and sub-atomic physics, is so complex now, no one understands the paradigms any more. It is not so much whether anything can be proven, it more seriously concerns, whether we understand anything enough to investigate it thoroughly.
Do you think that scientists ought to abandon these theories and adopt creationist or Biblical electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.?
The human intellect is limited, any intellectual pursuit will ultimately fail, we were defeated before we started. Space time is far beyond the understanding of the human intellect. Though I am fascinated by astrophysics and particle physics, I recognize that knowledge is ultimately an invalid source of truth.
The one part of modern young-Earth-creationism that is testable by the scientific method is flood geology, the belief that the sedimentary rocks, with their fossils, was deposited by Noah's flood. This hypothesis was conclusively disproved in about 1830, nearly 200 years ago. Scientifically, it is as dead as phlogiston theory and the theory that comets are phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere. This demonstrates the truth of your remark about scientific theories being temporary phenomena, but it is strange that so many young Earth creationists adhere to this exploded scientific theory.
This is more about theology rather than revelation, I am not a young earth creationist. Nor do I hold that any ideology will lead to a truth statement. One cannot first assume a truth, then proceed to the truth. Sounds very much like the blind leading the blind.
