Talk:Creation science/Archive 6

message: Ungtss has restored the long-winded description of what other literalists in other religions might believe in (creation according to Genesis, great flood, etc). This is an unnecessary distraction editorially. There is no compelling reason to describe what these people who are, by the article's admission, not holders to creation science believe. We already say they are creationists, if they are that important let them be described on the creationism page or their own page. This is a page not about the beliefs of fundamentalists Bahai believers, it is a page about "creation science". Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What other religions believe

message: Ungtss has contributed the following:
:=== Creation science and the God of the Gaps ===
:Another issue surrounded creation science is the God of the gaps argument.  The God of the gaps argument provides that it is unreasonable to believe that natural phenomena are explained by divine action, because historically, science has continually explained phenomena that were previously seen as divine in origin.  Thus, creation science is seen as placing God in the "gaps" of science, when, in fact, further research into science should be placed in those gaps.
:Creation scientists see the issue differently.  They typically argue that the god of the gaps argument rests on the premise of philosophical naturalism that God does not act in the universe.  For if it is believed that God may act in the universe, then "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, and neither is inherently more likely when the true answer is unknown.  "Gaps" in science should be presumed to have naturalistic explanations only when theistic causes are excluded a priori.  Thus, the god of the gaps argument depends on philosophical naturalism for its meaning.  Theistic realism, on the other hand, allows for the possibility of divine action in the universe as well as naturalistic causation.  If one starts with the premises of theistic realism, therefore, the "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, but where naturalistic explanations are consistently shown to be unreasonable or impossible, it is reasonable to infer divine causes.
I think that this contribution is problematic because I haven't seen anyone who claims that those advocating creation science believe in God of the Gaps. That's more of an Intelligent Design critique. Most creation science folks think that science is wrong so that there is really no need for them to invoke any "gaps" except to say that they invent "gaps" where no gaps are to be found. Joshuaschroeder 20:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ungtss contribution

message: In the article opening paragraph, there is a statement concerning the belief of all the "mainstream Christian churches."  How is this group defined? Is it defined as all Christian churches that do not subscribe to CS? Dan Watts 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  I have revised the intro accordingly.  --JonGwynne 22:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there a reference on that statement? Falphin 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation Science