Originally posted by nickybutt
A lot of astromical measurement is based on radiology, which is, as far as I understand it, a part of the nuclear physics science field. And computer science ows a lot to nanotechnology which also is linked with nuclear physics (I believe ...[text shortened]... field depends on the other, but if I'm wrong, I'll apologise.
Sorry, still only partially with you.
I understood why you brought astronomy up, but any link between astronomy and the technology examples we started with still escapes me.
I can also understand why'd you mention geology, because of the millions of years vs 6000 years thing. But that ONE disputed 'fact' in creationism has no relevance to how to... oh, I don't know, mine raw materials to make something. You have to know the properties of minerals, and your beliefs about how they came to be the way they are make no difference so long as you have their CURRENT properties right.
Why you think chemistry contradicts creationism completely escapes me. I studied chemistry at university, and I certainly don't remember the age of the universe having the slightest relevance to my understanding of why transition metals behave the way they do. Hydrogen atoms don't behave differently depending on how old they are.
These are all just examples of my central problem with your original idea: an awful lot of science is about describing the world as it is. How it came to BE that way is only an issue in some parts of science.
Even in biology (which I also studied at university), an awful lot of the useful information is about how things ARE, and it's only when you start to ask WHY things are as they are that a creationist might run into difficulty. I had strongly creationist friends doing biochemistry who didn't have the slightest problem accepting all the intricacies of cell metabolism. They could explain the mechanism of cyanide as a poison just as well as an evolutionist could.
I personally don't have a settled view on evolution/creation precisely because it doesn't make any difference for most purposes. To do practical applications - like making things - the theory behind why is a lot less useful than the empirical observation about the world as it is now.