I ended with the question of whether, as a theory, creationism could perhaps add to the body of scientific knowledge, or advance the general aim of investigation. Refer again to the Red-Handed Crook analogy: Perhaps it isn't directly relevant what the crook ate for breakfast, but we might be interested in the data nonetheless, "outside the court" as it were.
So let's play along: If god theory offers valuable insights into How Things Work, where do those insights sit in relation to existing scientific theory?
Because science is not just the Theory of Evolution. Science is also host to the Theory of Gravitation, and of Molecular Biology and of Antibiotics, and Planetary Motion, and Electromagnetism.
If a god theory seeks to be treated as science, it must (by definition) fit somewhere into this taxonomy.
Where in science should god live?
If god theory offers an alternate framework for some of what science posits, and also offers solutions for what cannot be represented in science (i.e. faith), then it is in intersection with science.If god theory claims to address alternatively all that science addresses, than it is a superset of science. If it only claims to address a small fraction, then it is a subset.
A fourth possibility not shown is that god theory would claim to occupy the same space as all of science, and then some.
While you can surely find creationists of all sorts who will make that assertion, these claims will never be part of any attempt to augment scientific theory; That would instead be an attempt to supplant science completely - a different topic which we'll cover later. :)
So it would seem fair and appropriate to consider those who want to introduce god theory to science as holding the "intersection" position. Certainly science lays (nor desires) no claim to explanations of the theistic parts of religion - so this would seem to best represent the situation.
God theory as an augment to science
If it disputes some of what science posits, accepts some, and proposes solutions for matters not addressed by science, then it could be argued that a god theory simply augments science.
Scientific investigation welcomes sound, valid theories that correlate to observable evidence - especially when it conflicts with other theories (that's sort of the whole point). Quantum mechanics conflicts with thermodynamics, string theory conflicts with quantum mechanics - and so on. In time, through the Scientific Method, we often find that as our understanding of new sciences unfolds, these inevitably "meet up" in such a way that they no longer conflict - and the theory is adjusted in accordance with the evidence.
So why couldn't a god theory just be some "new branch of science", like string theory?
Well, we don't pursue a theory of gravitation simply because the theory exists. We pursue it because it is testable, predictable, and correlates to observations, where other competing theories have not. In other words, it is a plausible theory.
Scientific exploration doesn't demand that every fantastical idea be investigated as a potentially valid theory. Scientists entertain the bizarre notions of string theory because, as posited, it would both fit observations and it would resolve some outstanding questions.
But does god theory offer us any of these? Does it offer us new formula, new experimental processes which can be independently repeated? Does it offer us anything at all that we didn't already have? If we're going to expand the scientific domain to include such powerful forces as gods, there had better be some very compelling reasons.
And it had better explain something important.
But a god theory explains nothing
It's here that theism's application to join science must be denied. In relation to any scientific dilemma (say, universal origin) for which a supernatural being could be posited as a solution, that being itself immediately becomes the most weighty and implausible element of the proposition.
In illustration: The concept of "natural selection", at first glance, seems profoundly complex. Tiny components, evolving in place over millennium, through billions of generations, to create eyeballs and immune systems...I mean, wow! That really is incredible, in that it literally strains one's credulity.
Our experience (and Sherlock Holmes) suggest that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be correct (also known as Occam's Razor). Well, natural selection does seem (initially at least) to be anything but simple.
So let's look about for a simpler explanation. How about creation theory? What does it posit? Well, "god created life" - how much simpler can it get? Occam's Razor would seem to agree.
For about 30 seconds.
In contrast to faith, the scientific method demands that we continue the analysis. Okay great - a supernatural being created life. Science wants to know where to look for the artifacts of this event; we need to analyze them. And where should we look to learn the mechanics of this being? What is its mass? What does it eat? How does this being's existence fit into the observations of Genetics, Physics, Astronomy, Geology?
Science is not a matter of "belief" - we need to identify (and test) the evidence, in order to progress toward understanding how and why. Or it is simply not science.
If these questions can only be answered with "god did it", "it's a miracle" or "have faith" - then our understanding of the universe is no further than before we undertook this "god science". In fact, we are considerably poorer for the effort of this "augmentation", because...
God theory is the most complex solution possible
Ignoring the fact that "god did it" simply doesn't objectively answer anything, it is still itself problematic. Because science will not (must not) stop with solutions like "god did it".
Where did this god come from? If a god was created, we can't avoid a recursion ("what created that one?") that never ends - therefore the answer can only be that the supernatural being already existed.
Creationism explains the mystery of origin by way of a mystery whose origin cannot be explained. That is not intellectually profitable - or even remotely satisfying. We've traded a mystery for a supernatural deity and an even less plausible mystery.
A god theory will always be a far more complicated solution than any mystery it could hope to address - because the existence of a supernatural being would be the most complicated thing ever.
Occam's Razor epic fail
There is no scientific dilemma to which theism can be proposed as a solution, without that solution introducing a Pandora's Box of far more complicated problems.
God theories are simply not useful in the resolution of scientific dilemma. That is why they are not part of science. Well, that and the fact that they're usually nonsensical and self-contradictory.
Next up
How "creation science" argues itself right out of validity. Or, possibly, why science routinely, voluntarily, "throws the ball" to theism - and why theism never fumbles that interception. I haven't decided which topic, yet.
Until then, keep your thinking caps firmly on your heads! ;)
