TANSTAAFL
...and would like to add that the formation of any empirical theory upon a abstract philosophical, theological or metaphysical theory is asking for trouble, as it makes the theory impossible to truely prove, while it is possible to disprove it by removing the other evidence that it relies upon. So, while evolutionists can't prove that God didn't create the world, we can show that it didn't happen as Creationism says. And Creationists can't ever truely prove that he did create it. It is a lose-lose situation, due to the poor science used to base the theory.
Creationism is based up on a philosophical and theological abstractation, ie, that God exists and created the world. It also includes a good amount of empirical evidence, albeit weak evidence in comparison to that we have for evolution.
A philosophical abstractation can never truely be proven or disproven, so long as it is logicaly sound. So, as long as no-one can find a logical proof for the non-existance or existance of God, that remains uncertain. It must be assumed by the indervidual, and so it is a matter of belief, not science.
However, the empirical evidence that works alongside that assumption is subject to normal science, and can be disproven by scientific study. This is what most evolutionists, including those of us in this guild, tend to do most of the time, and is relativly simply most of the time.
With its empirical evidence removed, Creationism is left as a meer belief, with no more evidence or grounding in fact than any other abstract idea. And so creationism can never by used in a true scientific sense.
And, what is more, because the founding principle of creationism can never be proven, there is no way that it can become a definate theory, as the evidence is too tenuous without that cornerstone. Only those who have sufficient faith in the existance of God to ignore scientific procedure could ever think of it as a viable theory, even if evolution turns out to be false.
And so, any attempts for people to defend Creationism, either by attacking evolution or by building up a shield of evidence, is doomed, because they are building on, or prepairing the way for, a rotten foundation.
I want to get some opinions and constructive criticism before I take this to the main forums, and confront the Creationists themselfs with it. I don't realy want to have it torn apart because of some flaw in my logic.
