I have often said that it is not self-evident to me that the question of
origins is an obvious scientific question. If not, then the Bible may
provide an answer to it. However, the answer is not a scientific answer and
so is not "a working replacement" to evolutionary theory.
>So what dynamical theory is there then for creationism in the form of a
>mathematical model (or models) which gives "precise answers to well-posed
>questions"? I would even settle for something far less rigorous, such as a
>model that could explain, concur with, yea even make predictions concerning the
>entire body of plainly observable biological/geological phenomena in the
Biblical answers are not scientific. The creation act of God cannot be
described by human thoughts or inventions.
>Perhaps I'm in a leaky boat, but it floats. Criticize my boat -- many
>criticisms may be warranted and helpful -- but do not think I am going to
>abandon it until the critics can actually come up with a material boat that
>is not held together with the water-soluble glue of persistant, unnecessary
>recourse to miraculous Divine intervention.
I believe the questions answered by Scripture are orders of magnitude more
important than any purely scientific questions that man has answered.