I just stumbled on an article at the Cosmology Curiosity blog which I like to read, which talked about Russel Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology Theory, and which basically underlined its main points (Read it Here), and I felt a need to react to such a theory, given the fact that I thought it was unnacceptable to deal with God and Science in such a way. Here was my response:

Please keep in mind that I am a fervant atheist, although I respect the religious beliefs of other people.

I find it extremely amusing (though this is my point of view…) to see people using science to try and prove that God created the world. I think that doing this undermines the whole theory, because, no matter how much you base your research on hard facts, you are trying to prove something that you actually have no proof of, which is extremely unscientific: scientific methodology should be the following: observing, analyzing results and finally deducing stuff from it, and not, observe, analyze, and say that the results prove something that you actually have no proof of. I’m not saying that this theory is false, because just as there’s no proof of God’s existence, there isn’t any proof either of his inexistence.

I’m an atheist, but that doesn’t mean that I think that science should be used to prove that God does not exist. We should get the data and create scientific theories that can work on a stand-alone basis. To sum up, you use rationalism, empiricism, and then you say that it proves something when it actually doesn’t. What’s funny is that only the people who believe in God do this, I feel that they are trying to justify their faith in God. What I dislike about this is that it’s more or less trying to make the fact say something that it doesn’t. Think of it this way: would this theory have ever been created if Christianity didn’t exist, or the author did not believe in it?

This makes the theory so subjective and biased that it just seems obviously wrong. Proving the existence (or non-existence of God) with science is totally pointless, and I think that science and religion should be kept appart for the moment, until we have, if we ever do, the actual possibility to prove or not God’s existence. But for the moment, we are like cavemen trying to measure the curving of the universe with two silexes.

I hate it when people use numbers to say what they don’t, because there will always be people who disagree with your interpretation of them, at least on such a large scale where it’s just so ambiguous and we’re so ignorant that there’s not even a point to arguing about it. Debates do become interesting when it regards things that can actually be proven. But no one, at this point of time, is able to say with absolute certainty if God exists or not, therefore let’s not debate about it, because you’ll never be able to prove your results. As a result, your theory must be rejected (at least by those who believe in Science and reason), not because its wrong or false, but simply because you are not actually proving anything and not using facts appropriatly. Therefore, you are not using Science, and the so called Scientific Creationism shouldn’t be called that way, because it makes people think that you are proving God’s existence when in fact you’re not.

Please feel free to comment and react, lets have a debate!
Clement

Other Sites about Scientific Creationism, Further Reading

• Creation Science Debunked - Anti Creation Science Website
• Creation Science - Pro Creation Science Website