The core of science is the operation of logic and reasoning according to matter. The core of Creationism, as with any religious belief, is totally outside these parametres, you cannot reason for God, you just must accept that that is the way it is.

If Creationism and Intelligent design are to be considered science, then we must also consider other systems of explaining the world, that do not use logic, to be science to.

Creationists who believe their theory as scientific must also accept:

Alchemy to be science

Witchcraft to be science

Astrology to be science.

And of course, they don't.

Creationism is a valid religious theory. But it cannot appeal to anything that constitues the scientific. For a scientific theory to be valid, IT MUST BE ABLE TO BE PROVED WRONG. If there is no way of testing a theory, then it is NOT SCIENCE. All scientists agree with this. As there is no proof whatsoever to faith, and no way of proving, it cannot be science.

I forgot this one,

Creationism actually isn't a valid philosophical theory either, because it uses AD HOC reasoning - that is, whenever it meets a problem, because there is no central law, it must make up some extra reasoning to contend with this problem. Because creationists spend most of their time contending with the opposition from others, and amending their theory to defend it, theirs is considered an AD HOC, and therefore unacceptable argument in philosophy.

'Pour exampleh';

Creationists believe the universe is just 10,000 years old, like the Bible says.

So how do they account for light that is coming from a star 40,000 light-years away? Surely, God isn't a deceiver, is he?? The answer, of course, is to use ad hoc reasoning. Creationists invented an extra theory called 'time dilation' which tries to deal with these problems.

This is just one example of ad hoc at work in defending Creationism. This isn't to say Creationism doesn't work, within its own reasoning system, it works very well. It's just NOT science, and cannot either be accepted as philosophically correct or valid.

This argument deals with the fitness of the universe for life, for the fitness for human habitation, and assumes that science is correct in saying that the universe began with "a big bang". I don't believe it to be a valid scientific theory, and it does not affect my thoughts on god at this time as I am still trying to find them. The paradox of the stone interested me though.

Intelligent Design is a valid existential proposition to explain the existence of the Universe.

Some of course give the phrase a bound meaning in order to specificly refute that as a straw man argument as-it-were.

One should not confuse cosmological theories with intelligent design as a valid existential option.The Universe, whatever it is, does seem to exist, and human experience does happen, and the question of if that experience and phenomenality is in the most absolute sense a consequence of an intelligent designer is always a valid consideration even if one a priori rejects it.

I wrote a small book on this subject named 'Creation and Cosmos; The Literal Values of Genesis' with many of these ideas about intelligent design and cosmology.

One might read Paul Davies book 'The Mind of God' published in 1989 and get some of the mathematical-physicist's point of view on the high ground of an intelligent designer and the modern cosmological theories. Dr. Davies won a Templeton Prize.

It is good not to get to mired down in incomplete and straw men arguement criteria on the issue of intelligent design versus whatever...evolution in some cases. Many of the arguments simply are invalid or don't hold water, are not relevant or determinative.

I gave Peter's value that a day to God is as a thousand years, for example, and calculated the creation of Adam on that basis, and got about 2.4 billion years past. Evolutionary Archeo-Biologists place the rise of Eukaryotic life right about then...coincidence?

There was a mathematician named Cantor that developed the concept of absolute sets, and he concluded that it is not possible for an absolute set of all sets to include itself within that set with validity. That limitation is applicable to any cosmological theory too one would think, and the empirically unprovable nature of God that some people claim is a reason for disbelief is not of a fundamentally different character. That is, an ultimate or absolutely valid cosmology cannot be proven either because it will always be subject to a meta-physics.

God is non-contingent being and not subject to the space-time matter of His creation. One will need to accept that on faith.

Physics and Meta-Physics in Cosmology

Substantial material facts are considered to be the universe for-itself. One might of course stipoulate the word 'material' as an intermediate term, yet that would be wrong.

One can say that 'knowledge' or 'science' is generally about the heterodox interpretation of sense data in increasingly rational parameters of mechanics perhaps.

The idea of what the Universe is like for-itself is of present interest. Not only is there an anthropic principal regarding the parametrical values that physicist find about the bound variables that allow life to exist in this universe, and its improbability, there is perhaps something else that i will call the 'anthropic principle of perception' that is maybe a synthetic update of Kant's concept of categorical limits of human perception and accurate interpretaion of sense data because of the nature of the cognitive faculties in the human condition.

The anthropic principle of perception would be that the Universe is perhaps mass/energy or whatever it's called by people, and yet it's scale and shape or particular attributes are what cognition makes it seem to be...such as planets and galaxies. For itself the Universe may be quite something else. All those spatial dimentions may be united in a hyper-time that isn't relativistic, the superposition of quantum particles from all possible worldlines may simply be an illusory perceptable phenomenality by humans in'the'universe through scientific theory because they fit the 'holographic' nature of the Universe fully. There may be no space for-itself or time, and the nature of things such as gravity may be developments of long human sense experience that seem very meaningful yet aren't primary or essential fundamental building blocks of the Universe or pluralverse.

In a sense science must rely on mathematical metaphysics in order to try to understand the true nature of the universe through theories that can fit observations better and better, yet they do have that absolute limitation of being surpassabel by 'greater' or meta physics.

The anthropic perception principle means that the window of space-time that people experience in may be limited or filtered to such an extent that absolute empirical knowledge of the Universe or pluralverse isn't practical, and that it's grounding in God, and the kingdom of God being within ultimately, is a matter of faith.

Recently astronomers observed probable galaxies with many old stars from inflaton plus 800 million years upsetting the entire context of missing dark matter and energy in the Universe. Much shaky ground and facinating possibilities exist out there. The 'Dark Era' of the Universe before star and galaxy formation wasn't, in theory, so many hundreds of million years before.

Davies discussed the realty or non-reality debate about math in some detail...some believe math exists a priori in a Platonic sense, other's that they are entirely unreal, abstract systems that ultimately have no 'real' existence. The problem arise how math can cross the 'gulf of solipsim', as well as the principle of anthropic perception' to apply in a meaningful way and relate or transplate abstract relations of nature to human minds and subjective existential criterion.

It is a paradox that Platonic 'realism' is the most ideal of all philosophical systems, in which even numbers and math systems have an existence in a realm of forms of some surrealist, metaphysical character.

Actual physical force fields, and the accuracy and inaccuracy of math modeling of them seems of a philosophically uncertain nature.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~fitelson/140A/realism.pdf#search='platonic%20realism%20of%20math'

Here is my opinion. As stated before, Intelligent Design is not scientifically or even logically correct. But a step of faith (in the right direction) and a question is raised - 'who created science and logic?' We all know that creationism cannot be proven nor disproven through science, but it can still be accepted as a reasonable belief, even though so much faith is required for it to be accepted. God cannot be explained through science because he is NOT restricted under those laws. God is not science, he created science. 'God's Science' if you will, requires a lot of faith to be accepted. In fact, it can not be accepted any other way. But once that faith is activated, as in me, things become clearer (not in a brainwash sense, but a purification of the mind) You need to be faithful and open minded to believe in creationism. God has his own science, besides our universe's science. So this is what I believe. God cannot be accounted for through science because he his not under the restriction of his creation. His own science is far more complex and brilliant - too complex for us to comprehend completely. That is where this faith comes in. Just walk in trust - not walking blind, but in hope of what is ahead. Please EXPAND your horizons to these new ideas. Consider the possibility of the existence of God's Science.

As I have stated in nearly all of my previous posts on allphilosophy, there is a huge chasm between philosophy and science, a chasm that has arbitarily and unnecessarily been dug so that scientists could continue to delve deeply into the workings of our universe without having to realize the implications these findings have on our existence.

It was stated above multiple times that science cannot accept a creator, because that creator would be beyond the bounds of science, and therefore science could never deduct his/her/its existence. Very good job. Obviously that is a conclusion that will inevitably be reached by anyone who spends the time to think. The irrationallity occurs when it is said that because science cannot point to a supernatural existence, there can be no supernatural existence. The problem here is that if science cannot point towards a creator, neither can it point away from one, since the creator is unrestricted by the laws he/she/it created. Saying that there is no God is just as scientifically ungrounded as saying there is one.

Consequently, the multitudes of people who have drilled it into our heads that God cannot exist because of science have either drawn a conclusion as absurd and ungrounded as they claim the existence of God, or they have stepped outside the bounds of science to obtain knowledge of God's nonexistence. This is where the manmade chasm between philosophy and science come into play. Science is not the definitive answer for all knowledge. For example, which language do I natively speak? The correct answer is English, but no form of science could ever tell you that. In fact, science can't prove that English even exists, so why bother with that obviously false assumption? We have to admit that science can only take us so far, and that philosophy can only take us so far, but if we blend together the two, they can take us further than we can yet imagine.

When it comes down to it, the fact that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory doesn't mean it is an untruthfull one. We need to come to realize that science doesn't hold all the answers. In fact, the distinction between scientific fact and philosophical fact (when I say philosophical, I'm really referring to anything concluded through logic, and any religious/phlosophical conjectures. Basically any way of learning that doesn't directly involve science) is only the method of learning it.