See, what I really don't get about AiG and ICR is how they can call their research scientific, and at the same time allow for miracles. If they're going to allow God to interfere in the beginning, but not anywhere else, that's deism and not Christianity. If they're going to allow God's interference anywhere and everywhere I don't see how there can be any coherent naturalism, even the methodological (as opposed to philosophical, principled, atheistic naturalism) kind that science presupposes. If they're not going to allow God's interference then their case is over.
Which is why I asked in another thread, "Who's yoked to who?" Isn't it really scientific creationism yoked to atheistic evolutionism? Both sides have made the error of trying to support metaphysical conclusions with physical data. The atheists do it because they like proving their points in any way they can. The scientific creationists do it because their minds have already been shackled by that way of thinking.
AiG and ICR try to claim moral high ground and elevate their ideas to metaphysical ideas by assuming that they are working from the Bible. (That alone is questionable because there are many other people equally committed to the Bible and Christianity and yet read the Bible very differently. It seems they are only committed to their interpretation of the Bible. But that's another thread.) They therefore very proudly and piously declare that "any evidence that goes against what we believe must de facto be false." But in doing so, they have laid the seeds of their own downfall - for if evidence cannot disprove their position I don't see how in any way evidence can disprove the opposite to their position, or prove their position.
The difficulty should be obvious. You are allowed to believe that the global flood happened despite the evidence. Fine. Let's say that someday somebody digs up a massive piece of geological evidence showing that there indeed was a global flood - a worldwide ring of sediment or something. Does that validate your theory? No, I have every right to say "I disbelieve the global flood, despite the evidence for it." I have every right to say that the worldwide ring of sediment was in fact an artifact put there by God to fool the world into believing that there was a global flood where in fact there was none, just as you have every right to say that all the evidence against a global flood does not in fact prove that it did not happen.
If AiG and ICR will not allow evidence to refute their position then they cannot allow evidence to support their position. If theirs is a metaphysical conclusion, it cannot be supported by physical evidence. It must be supported purely by metaphysical evidence. And yet their articles and research are far more about science than about the Bible. See the disingenuousness?
For TEism, the origins of the earth and of life are physical conclusions. The evidence works; the evidence will tell us what we need to know. The metaphysical theories of origin need no physical proof. We do not need IDism to tell us that life has purpose; Christians worldwide believe that "God has a destiny for me!" even though there isn't a shred of scientific study that can remotely support any such notion. We believe in the resurrection precisely because it is first and foremost something accepted metaphysically, something accepted even if we do not have firsthand access to the evidence the way the disciples had. We accept it solely on the basis of trusting the apostles and the Holy Spirit, since we do not have the empty tomb and the burial clothes deflated on hand to study; we do have the fossils and the rocks and the genes to study firsthand.
Dude study the Bible a little. The resurrection was not spiritual but physical. It happened in the physical material natural world. Yet it was a miracle. Therefore, according to you, there is no evidence for it, since all evidence is scientific. If you disagree please tell me what the evidence for it is.
