Thread: If Creationism doesn't make scientific predictions, discoveries, much less sense,...

...what makes it science?
From Jesus Freak's website.

(How, then, is creationism... scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.”)

OK... So creationism only becomes a science once you've successfully changed the definition of science.

In the real world, those are what we call underhanded tactics grounded in philosophical self-interests if not completely deluded.

Nothing at all.

Note to Jesus Freak: Your link points to a web site that within the first two paragraphs has offered lies and incorrect statements.

Creation science is not science because its central pillar requires divine action. As such, it is not testable. So the author of that page compares Creation science to naturalism, but fails to define that term. It says, neither is predictive and neither is falsifiable.

Well, that's not entirely true. Particularly for the Young-Earth crowd, the age of the Earth is provable to exceed 6000 years. By a few orders of magnitude. So that branch of Creation science IS testable and HAS been falsified.

Naturalism, if defined to include gene shuffling, is testable and has been corroborated. If defined to include survival of the fittest, it is testable and has been corroborated. If defined to include natural mutation through various factors as yielding an inheritable characteristic, that has been detected and corroborated.

Therefore, Jesus Freak, beware of pointing to web sites that are, to put it bluntly, propaganda sites that have typical fundamentalist disregard for scientific truth.

You should compare Creation science to Big Bang theory and evolution theory, both of which ARE testable. And have been tested and strongly corroborated.