Replies

Your link to an article from the Institute for Creation Research, commenting on a science article in Astrobiology, makes it seem that the ICR is doing science.

Lets look at what type of "science" they are doing. Here, from their webpage, is what they believe:

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

If they want to believe this way, fine. But they shouldn't try to call it science--that would be a lie.

It's pure apologetics.

Richard Dawkins, one of your high priests from the Church of Darwin, disagrees with you:

“I do have one thing in common with the creationists. Like me they will have no truck with NOMA and its separate magisteria.”

“The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question...The methods we should use to settle the matter...would be purely and entirely scientific methods.”

—Richard Dawkins

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf

So we start with singularity. All the matter that composes the universe compressed into the size of a walnut (or so scientists speculate). And there is sat for some undetermined amount of time until it let go and expanded to the the size of the universe in a trillion trillionth of a second, moving faster than the speed of light (which is impossible but we won’t let details get in the way).

But if time and space didn’t exist yet, how do we know how big it was since there was no space to fill?

And how do we know how long it sat there unexpanded if time didn’t exist yet?

And why did it remain unexpanded for as long as it did?

Then why did it expand?

And where did it come from to begin with?

If a simple black hole has enough gravitational pull that no light can escape it, then how did the gravitational pull of all the matter in the universe manage to let go and expand?

So this universe then assembled itself into an orderly law abiding system, in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So what caused the laws that operate it to be set up? And how can it violate those laws?

Then life allegedly arose from non-living material, all on its own, then evolving into a complex self-reproducing entities. Consciousness and thought, emotions and will, all had their origin from randomness and chaos.

This isn’t science either. Looking at the universe and rewinding backwards like a video tape is a pretty poor excuse. Not to mention that it’s not testable, not reproducible, not observable, can’t be run as an experiment in a lab.

And scientists mock creationists?

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

I agree this can not be tested by science. However current understanding of physical laws support much of it.

First the universe could not have always existed. This follows from the second law of thermodynamics combined with the apparent finite amount of energy in the universe. Now like anything science discovers, this foundation could be wrong, but both are pretty much considered "settled science". So the current state of science implies the universe did not always exist (although it appears to be extremely old).

From this it follows the universe must have started as a result from something outside of its own physics -- which means something that transcends it.

Now as far as we know, that might mean invisible pink flying unicorns...except that there is no sense in assigning them a color or shape -- concepts projected from non-transcendence...so such imaginings are better left to naturalist apologetics.

The whole business of matter always existing is kinda mind-boggling as well; to me it implies that we are all Sisyphean in nature without even knowing it.