[dekhn]

The reason we believe in time invariance of the laws of physics is based on observation of old structures in the universe (at least we only have to look back about 4 billion years to the beginning of evolution on earth). So far we have not found any convincing evidence that the laws have changed (either new or different interactions, or the strength of the interactions).

I will say all of science is based on faith- the faith that the human mind can perceive the universe as it truly is, using rational thought and experimental data collection. For some reason this really bothers some scientists and they like to treat science as an unquestionable objective truth, but realistically, we can't exclude any number of hypotheses, but merely state them as improbable based on our understanding.

[basil-rash]

I fear you are failing to comprehend how fundamental the axiom in question (is the universal state influenced by actors beyond our comprehension?) really is. There is no experiment that can answer it, any and all observations must be looked at under a lens that is fundamentally influenced by your answer to the question.

We can certainly say that the observations look like they may have progressed at the rate we expect for the past 13 billion years, but that does nothing to exclude the possibility that around 6,000 years ago some actor we do not understand took 1 week to craft everything we observe now to be precisely how it is.

Reading your final paragraph, I believe we are more aligned than I previously thought. :)

[dekhn]

I thought even creationists rejected the Ussher chronology.

[basil-rash]

Some might. There are many branches and leaves in both the evolutionist and creationist worldview trees. That axiom is simply a fairly significant trunk-branch.

That said, it is very rare that I hear someone describing themselves as Christian who denies the general 7 day creation story. I happen to personally believe it was seven consecutive days^, but I've heard arguments it could have been seven days with an unknown gap in-between each pair.

^ "day" being the most morally-understandable way of describing the intervals at which the creation occurred. Obviously there was no sun or even light at first, so the concept of a day itself is shaky, and I make no claims as to how many cesium-133 transitions may have occurred in that period, or how far light might have travelled in one of them once it was created, or the magnitude of the various fundamental forces' impact on matter in that period, or really anything related to our understanding of how the dynamics we currently observe may have behaved in those intervals.

[dekhn]

I think I'll stick to the Silmarillion, it's a much more compelling origin story than Genesis (either version).

[basil-rash]

Feel free.

But how much of the world's resources have been dominated by folks placing their faith in Eru Ilúvatar?

And I'm sure you're aware Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and described his works as fundamentally Catholic?

[dekhn]

Yep, and CS Lewis was religious as well- didn't stop me from enjoying the creation of narnia in the Magician's Nephew. It did stop me from enjoying the Last Battle, as that was too egregious.