Creation as the result of the Creator’s work and the act of creating
“Secularity” is often distinguised as “what is secular” compared with “secularism” which means the promotion or the expansion of secularity. The problem is not what is secular but an expansive meaning to what is secular. Historically, “secular” meant of an age or of this world (as opposed to the age or world to come) or civil or […]
The key to explaining everything in a domain is to project the data onto an explanatory space that is intuitively clear. So evolutionists project all life onto an axis defined by the extremes of law and chance. If they are presented with evidence of design, they just analyze it onto law and chance and say
People often fail to distinguish different types of creation. Primary creation is creation from nothing. It requires not only a supernatural ability but a transcendent being — one who is beyond creation. Secondary creation is creation from something but that requires supernatural abilities such as super-strength or super-intelligence. Tertiary creation is one that happens via
The confusion and disagreements about creation models shows the need to have accurate terminology. Accordingly, I suggest some standard terminology such as the following to distinguish types of Christian teaching on creation: The Creation Chronicles (CC) are the actions and events explicitly recorded in the Bible regarding the beginning and earliest years of the created
There are different sources of knowledge: historical, scientific, engineering, business, philosophical, theological, etc. They work best when they work together. For example, even the best business could not construct a very good bridge if they ignored engineering knowledge. This also applies to the sciences. The natural sciences need to consider knowledge from history and engineering
Some creationists emphasize the difference in religious/metaphysical assumptions of creationism vs. evolutionism as if this explains almost all their differences. But if that were true, creationists should focus on defending their religious/metaphysical assumptions instead of criticizing evolution. Since they do spend much time criticizing evolution, they are at least implicitly saying they have enough in common with
For Lakatos, what we think of as a ‘theory’ may actually be a succession of slightly different theories and experimental techniques developed over time, that share some common idea, or what Lakatos called their ‘hard core’. Lakatos called such changing collections ‘Research Programmes’. (1) Here is a description of three research programmes concerned mainly with
