Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.
Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.
You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.
I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:
- It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
- It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.
Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?
You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.
Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."
What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist. I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored. I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First, atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth. First, creation scientists DO make predictions. I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon? But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural, "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable? The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical
ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is: how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution. What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.