I'm almost done reading Gilkey's Creationism on Trial. It actually covers a wide range of interesting information, and is a usefl read for anyone interested in the way the liberal academy views the relationship between religion, science, and Creationism. This is very useful because Gilkey's reasoning remains the predominant form of reasoning about these issues today.
Interestingly, I think that Gilkey contains in his argumentation all of the necessary elements for the demise of his conclusions (note that Gilkey's conclusions may have been perfectly valid concerning the case at hand in Arkansas, but my point is that the conclusion is not valid for all possible ways of putting Creationism together).
Here are some of the ideas which Gilkey presents in his book:
Now, there are several important flaws here, which we should take note of in the beginning:
So now, let's take a view of Creationism that works as follows:
It is difficult to see, even following Gilkey's framework 100%, why this should be disqualified as science. Even if at stage 6 Fred finds contrary evidence, but uses that to reformulate Y into Z, as long as at the end of the day the scientist is not using A to publicly validate Y and is instead using fairly standard scientific logic, then there is no inherent conflict between Creationism and science according to Gilkey's paradigm (although there may have been in the specific instances in the Arkansas trial).
So, some examples:
It is difficult to see, if science is taken as being a methodological limitation and not a limitation on reality, how such could be excluded from science (whether or not you agreed with the conclusions - note that much of science is not true [i.e. will be proven false] so whether or not you agreed with the conclusions would be irrelevant to whether or not it should be classified as science).
So, in fact, Creationism can be persued in a methodologically naturalistic way. However, I'm going to go further and say that it shouldn't be. Reality is not as separable as we might like. Also, there is no reason why modern limits on science should be carried into the future. There is no historical validity behind it. If the goal is to understand reality, then that must include understanding God and His Purposes. The understanding of God's action is likely to take a different form from current scientific understanding, but nonetheless I think it should be persued.
One instance of this occuring is ReMine's Message Theory (currently reading The Biotic Message - hope to report on it soon). Here, ReMine is at least attempting to present what he thinks is the message of biology - and it is a message which ReMine thinks is testable and verifiable. However, messages are not currently part of science, as they depend on non-material causation for their occurence.
The exciting thing, though, is that computer science already deals with structures which are the results of intelligent causes, so I would encourage anyone who is wanting to understand the non-material aspects of the future science, to study up on computer programming and theoretical programming semantics. This will prepare you for the future of science which is freed from its materialistic bondage, yet still remains validatable and empirical.
Salvador Cordova gives us a rundown of two basic models of physics being being explored by YECs. One starts with electrodynamics and the other starts with Einstein's special relativity. Both groups presented papers at ICC. I'm not all that knowledgeable in physics, but it looks like an interesting set of propositions either way. I'm reading through Hartnett's Starlight, Time, and the New Physics. It's interesting, but I don't have the background to make a judgment.
Anyway, the interest of physics for YEC'ers is twofold: 1) some YEC's are physicists, and thus they simply have an interest in both areas. 2) Physics is usually what is used to derive cosmologies, and therefore, the goal is to derive a YEC cosmology from the laws of physics.
Interestingly, AiG's Jason Lisle doesn't opt for any of these extensions to physics, but instead opts for an old universe in which the light from the distant stars all reach Earth on day 4 - they were created in such a pattern so that the light from all of them would reach Earth at the appropriate time.
Where I live Jupiter is out early in the evening. I took my oldest son out to look at it on the telescope. Even on our extremely-cheap, bottom-of-the-line telescope, we can see Jupiter beautifully. I can even make out some of the stripes on the planet. Unfortunately, our telescope is so wobbly that I can't take a picture of it (like I did of the moon) without it just turning out junky. The moon shot was possible because it was bright enough that I didn't actually have to touch the camera to the telescope to take the picture, and I didn't have to use long exposure times. With Jupiter, I would need a longer exposure time, and the viewport on the high-magnification lens is so small that I can't see anything unless I actually hold the camera to the telescope - and then it wobbles so much that it is unviewable.
But if you have access to a telescope - check out Jupiter, it's beautiful and easy to see (in North America, in any case).
UPDATE - just for practice, I went out tonight and took some moon shots. Most of them were pretty bad, but this one was passable:
Just received these from Amazon and/or the library, or am in the process of finally reading: