Dont think you will like this, but here goes.
I take a generalist approach
I am familiar with the various theories (including several variants of the "Gap" theory) used by Creationists. They are all very interesting as theological excercizes. It's fine for people to believe in them, but I have major difficulties when they are presented as "Science".
Does literal interpretation make sense here?
Due to the metaphorical nature of the 12 chapters of Genesis, I think it is not obvious to me that we should to try to take them literally. There are just too many interpretation permutations possible, you can get just about anything out of them. The many creationist theories are examples of this.
Is it science?
All these Creationist theories require numerous miraculous events which puts them outside of the realm of science. Because of this, it is non-trivial to test the merits of these theories. Howver, the proponents of these theological cosmological models do make some testable predictions. Since, it is much easier to check out the predictions than the theories, that is what I focused on when I tried to determine if I was being deceived.
evaluation method
Since, I don't have time to evaluate every (crackpot) theory, I came up with the following method to evalutate creationist theories when they are presented as scientific thought.
step 1 -- does it understand what evolution is?
First I try to see if the creationist theory mentions evolution. Most try to present themselves as an alternative to it. Then I see if it understands what the theory of evolution really is. if it does not understand something this simple, why bother trying to decyper all the problems with the evolution straw-horse it defines to easily knock down. Most Creation Science fails at this step.
step 2 -- check out its predictions
Most Creationist theories make some testable predictions. You know, some physical evidence left behind that does not need a miracle to properly interprete it. This is where all the Creationist "Scientific" theories fail. For example, your favorite selection from an assortment of "Gap" theories generates more problems than obervable predictions. For an example of this, please checkout talkorigins.org
These are the most basic questions. If your theory, when viewed as science, held any water, it could easily address them.
Sorry to disapoint you. |
