Part 1. Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible to Remake Creationism into A Scientific Theory?

It is plainly obvious to me, and perhaps to many thoughtful observers, that the most recent incarnation of Christian creationism, called Intelligent Design, has been a terrible failure. [1][2]. As a Millerite Christian, I'm particularly angered by how frequently fundamentalist Christians malign scientific truth and the true Christ. Truth that is controversial can't be authenticated using political force or underhanded Gestapo tactics but only through humility, transparency and genuine academic freedom. I believe it's clear that scientific theory is to be vindicated by strong evidence and logical reasoning, not by masterfully manipulating naive public opinion. The many attempts by the Intelligent Design movement to push creationism into biology classes in public schools, by appealing directly to legislatures and boards of education, while essentially sidestepping the scrutiny of the scientific process [3], is characteristically Antichristian. The colossal failure of the Intelligent Design movement to rationally defend their approach to science with hard evidence and inescapable logic compels me to point out that Christianity is divided into a fantastic number of sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories. Fortunately, Babylonian science will be overthrown. There are many true Christians that believe in true science.

My understanding of the creation-evolution debate is that respectable creationists have valid criticisms of Darwinian evolution but don't have a scientific alternative when asked. As I see it, the single most insurmountable problem with ID and all forms of fundamentalist creationism, is the insistence that God is the agent in the creation process. That's automatically against the established rulebook in the game called science. This is the ruling of secular courts:

According to the currently accepted principles of science, Intelligent Design isn’t science. The winning argument in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al states the scientific consensus admirably: Science can only accept natural explanations, never supernatural ones.



Are there any scientifically trained creationists here who would like to consider an acceptable theory of creationism that obviously comports to the fundamental principles of science? My suggestion may seem heretical to theists but I do have a theory of origins that does not presuppose an Intelligent Designer.