Can Creationist views logically hold in the modern age?

[otseng]

otseng is a Creationist and holds the position that is rational to believe in Creationism given the evidence we have now.

chrispalasz does not believe in Creationism.

Both otseng and chrispalasz are Christians.

otseng will be arguing for "Can Creationist views logically hold in the modern age?" And chrispalasz will be arguing against it.

[otseng]

I'll start by defining what I mean by Creationism.

"A belief that a supernatural entity created the universe and life."

I'm not going to argue for the identity of the creator. It could be JHWH, or Allah, or God the Father, or some unknown supernatural god that a religion has not been established yet.

Since this is a generic god, I won't use the Bible as evidence. And I'll attempt to only use modern empirical scientific evidence.

I'm not going to "prove" that a god created the universe. But simply show that it is logically reasonable to believe in Creationism and that appeals to blind faith is not necessary.

[otseng]

First evidence I present is the laws of thermodynamics.

Starting with the second law:

"the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

What this shows is that the universe cannot be infinite in age. If it has already existed for an infinite amount of time, entropy would be at its maximum value. We would've already experienced the heat death. Since we are not at the heat death, the universe must have a finite age.

Since it is finite, it must've had a beginning. Then the question is what caused the universe? It could not have spontaneously come about from within our universe since that would violate the first law.

"Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed."

"the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes"

Taking the universe as an isolated system, matter and energy could not have spontaneously arose. It can only have originated from outside the universe.

[otseng]

The second evidence is the law of biogenesis.

"The law which states that life arises from existing life."

Life does not come from non-life. This law is more consistent with a Creator creating life rather than abiogenesis.

Laws are the highest level of truth in science. There are no natural exceptions to laws, otherwise they would not be considered laws. These two laws, the laws of thermo and the law of biogenesis, point to a Creator. To counter this, an alternative explanation would have to be provided that would be more plausible. And I know of none.

[chrispalasz]

I'll start by defining what I mean by Creationism.

"A belief that a supernatural entity created the universe and life."

Trouble right out of the gate!

I'm going to start by disputing the accuracy of what you mean by 'Creationism'. If that's all you mean by calling yourself a Creationist, then I think calling yourself one is incredibly misleading and disingenuous. Your definition separates sharply from the word as defined by a dictionary, and also from common usage.

Under the definition you provided, I too am a Creationist. I believe that the Christian God created the universe and life, however, I will not limit myself by believing the Biblical account of Genesis is literal and by not allowing for the possibility that God has used supernaturally created 'natural' processes that can be understood by humanity (such as evolution).

However, your definition is not what Creationism is.

creâ‹…aâ‹…tionâ‹…ism
   /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

I submit that, in fact, you are not a Creationist - and that I win this debate.

I'm not going to argue for the identity of the creator.

As you like. You wouldn't likely encounter much resistance anyway. If you wanted to add use of the Bible into this debate, though, we could agree on establishing a GIVEN: That the Christian God is at work behind all divine and supernatural mentions.

[otseng]

Under the definition you provided, I too am a Creationist.

Well then, case closed!

Kidding aside, that's why it's important at the outset of any debate to define the terms.

Creationism can mean different things to different people. There is no hard consensus on the definition of the term. Sure, dictionaries can give their take on it, but in debating, we just need to agree on what we're debating about.

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Actually, I know of no creationist that defines it this way.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

I can agree with this.

3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

I've never heard of any creationist defining it this way either.

So, we can start from the second definition.

Creationism - "the doctrine of creation of the universe and life as described in the Bible". And I would also hold that this is a rational belief to have and blind faith is not necessary.