Taking Rudolf Carnap from the lofty heights of logical positivism into the bruisy political brawl of creationism is really misleading, and makes him look like a relativist, which he was not. Carnap also said there is no knowledge outside science, a claim which sets the tone for his views on truth. Non-scientific ‘linguistic framework systems’ tend to be internally inconsistent, indicating their weak grasp of truth. This use of Carnap illustrates that scientists need to be more street-wise in rebutting creationism, and not take statements from the likes of Popper or Hume or Quine outside their epistemological context. However, the real job is in comparing ways of thought - commensurating. There is a lot of work needed to recognise the legitimate arguments of the religious in order to rebut their false ones. This is best done from outside their “system”, not within it, as their ‘system’ contains untestable and false assumptions.
Sorry Warren, but with due respect, this statement is rubbish. Parsimony has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, and their ‘system’ is not ‘logically consistent and true’. For a start there are two creation accounts in Genesis, and the Bible itself is rife with inconsistency - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna..._and_the_Bible (Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible)
You are conflating ‘theism’ with ‘creationism’. This is not legitimate. Creationism is a specific form of theism, going beyond the claims of the existence of a Creator God to argue that God intervenes in the world in ways contrary to those observed by evolutionary biology, and indeed, in ways that science considers impossible and farcical (eg stopping the sun so Joshua could slaughter the Amorites ch10:v12). A sophisticated theism should recognise the operation of scientific law as the method of God, not continue to clutch at an obsolete magical view. You cannot be a ‘good critical thinker’ and a creationist. The two are incompatible.
Please, again this is false. Creationists do deny scientific evidence, notably the geological record. Theists who “interpret the empirical observations of science in a way consistent with the Bible”are not creationists. As well, your statement is not possible as there are claims in the Bible that are inconsistent with empirical observation.
This is a confusing aside which deserves comment nonetheless. Your word “underdetermined” may apply to some beliefs of scientists, but it is precisely the beauty and power of science that its theories are supported by evidence. Claims like string theory that do not have evidentiary backing do not have the status of scientific theory, but are merely hypotheses. “Underdetermined” theories can also be about things beyond the scope of empirical observation, such as theology. But this creationism thread should not be the place for an argument about whether scientific theory is entailed by evidence – something generally accepted as intrinsic to science.
My point (not made clearly enough) was that creationists use the cosmology they derive from Genesis to underpin their belief in New Testament ideas such as those of Saint Paul on the ransom theory of the cross (1 Tim 2:5). Creationists take cosmic Pauline hymns such as Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 as central to a magical concept of heaven and salvation which in its crude literal form is obsolete. They want to protect their flawed theory of salvation by an equally flawed and obsolete theory of creation. But please don’t get me wrong on this, I am a fan of Saint Paul. He had great ideas about salvation, its just that creationists can’t see them because they insist on clinging to the residues of a medieval concept of faith.