I guess, as a creationist sympathizer, I have many goals, some that have to do with science, some with philosophy, and some with education and public policy. In random order:

  • Impact of Evolutionary Philosophy: Because evolution has philosophical, religious, as well as scientific and public policy implications, we need to examine these critically. Evolution is more than a scientific theory, it is a philosophy and worldview that we should critically examine
  • Evolution and Atheism: Because one important impact of evolutionary philosophy is that it supports an atheistic world view (but not exclusively), and because philosophy is not science nor truth, it should be treated as such
  • Macroevolution: Because macroevolution is unprovable and not the same as speciation, adaptation, and natural selection (which all occur and are equally compatible with creationism), it should be separated out into the philosophy of science.
  • Scientific Dogmatism: Because the current scientific community is dogmatic in its love of evolutionary philosophy, anyone who questions it, even if they have impeccable credentials, is black-balled of fired. There are many current examples of this. This must stop.
  • Evolution and Science: The real fact is, the majority of science is done without any evolutionary assumptions, since it is not really needed to do good science. In fact, an evolutionary approach, or any solitary philosophical approach, impedes scientific discovery. Most of our greatest scientists and thinkers of the past have had a deist model, i.e. a design model.
  • Is ID a Creationist Plot: Yes and no. Many creationists have adopted it as their Trojan horse into the schools, but most IDers are interested in the design question, ID is consistent with an evolutionary view as well as creationist – it only infers that naturalistic explanations do not currently explain things. A deist view does not obviate science with “if we don’t understand the natural process, God did it”, rather, it merely loosens the stranglehold that atheistic, naturalistic evolutionists have on the philosophy of science by simply asking, “how could we identify design if it were present?”Loosening this stronghold will remove the “apparent” but often unnecessary disagreements between science and faith (faith as opposed to superstition, which are not the same), and deliver us from the mechanistic, industrial age “modern” view into a post-modern view, one that embraces all of reality and truth as connected, rather than relegating the spiritual to the realm of subjectivity, unreality, imagination, and superstition.

A purely mechanistic view of life may keep us safe from the vagaries of spiritual life, but it also keeps us from the wonderful realities of the spiritual life, and the increased understanding gained from the integration of disciplines.

Tags: