Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

Because creationism is not scientific.

Dur!

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

 

[daws101]

Because creationism is not scientific.

Dur!

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

That is because YWC doesn't know the true meaning of the term "empirical". Then again none of the creationists reading and/or writing that nonsense do either.

 

[YWN666]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

 

[YWN666]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

You are quoting from a source with ZERO credibility. Did you know that ICR members are required to abide by a "statement of faith" that forbids them from contradicting the bible? With that limitation to your research, is it any wonder that all members of ICR support the biblical "theory" of creationism? It's a freaking joke. NO legitimate scientist would allow anyone to put such limitations on their research. If you visit the ICR website, you'll see that they have discovered that mustard plants can do math! If I didn't know better, I'd have thought this nonsense came from The Onion. Unfortunately it is real and there are thousand of gullible saps who accept this crap as fact.

Creationist Statements of Faith

 

[BarryDesborough]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

You are quoting from a source with ZERO credibility. Did you know that ICR members are required to abide by a "statement of faith" that forbids them from contradicting the bible? With that limitation to your research, is it any wonder that all members of ICR support the biblical "theory" of creationism? It's a freaking joke. NO legitimate scientist would allow anyone to put such limitations on their research. If you visit the ICR website, you'll see that they have discovered that mustard plants can do math! If I didn't know better, I'd have thought this nonsense came from The Onion. Unfortunately it is real and there are thousand of gullible saps who accept this crap as fact.

Creationist Statements of Faith

And from the AiG Statement of Faith,

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

(Written by a fallible person who does not possess all information!)

 

[Uncensored2008]

(Written by a fallible person who does not possess all information!)

I thought you didn't care about being banned? Yet here you are, all socked up and ready to go....

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory whereas evolution is a scientific theory.

That YWC doesn't know what a scientific theory means gives lie to his claims to have worked in the DNA field.

I know and understand both theories, one is rejected by the science community with no evidence to reject.

So you take pot shots at me and the work I did for 11 years. I gave you the chance to discuss what I know but you like the normal coward ran and resorted to little insults. That is the tactic of an ignorant coward.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

Which went right over your head.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

That is because YWC doesn't know the true meaning of the term "empirical". Then again none of the creationists reading and/or writing that nonsense do either.

I have asked you to provide two forms of empirical evidence and not one of you have done so. Without that evidence you may have a theory but no empirical evidence that suggests this theory is viable. Do I deny variations within a family no but I do deny all organisms are related. That all organisms came from one organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

You are part of an extreme religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

You are quoting from a source with ZERO credibility. Did you know that ICR members are required to abide by a "statement of faith" that forbids them from contradicting the bible? With that limitation to your research, is it any wonder that all members of ICR support the biblical "theory" of creationism? It's a freaking joke. NO legitimate scientist would allow anyone to put such limitations on their research. If you visit the ICR website, you'll see that they have discovered that mustard plants can do math! If I didn't know better, I'd have thought this nonsense came from The Onion. Unfortunately it is real and there are thousand of gullible saps who accept this crap as fact.

Creationist Statements of Faith

How do you assign credibility ?

 

[YWN666]

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

 

[YWN666]

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

You are quoting from a source with ZERO credibility. Did you know that ICR members are required to abide by a "statement of faith" that forbids them from contradicting the bible? With that limitation to your research, is it any wonder that all members of ICR support the biblical "theory" of creationism? It's a freaking joke. NO legitimate scientist would allow anyone to put such limitations on their research. If you visit the ICR website, you'll see that they have discovered that mustard plants can do math! If I didn't know better, I'd have thought this nonsense came from The Onion. Unfortunately it is real and there are thousand of gullible saps who accept this crap as fact.

Creationist Statements of Faith

How do you assign credibility ?

If the fact that creationists conclusions are being dictated by the ICR doesn't raise red flags, it should. They're basically saying "Figure out how humans got here but your answer has to be 'God did it'". That's NOT science.

 

[Hollie]

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

There is no theory of creationism. The entirety of creationist dogma is rooted in Christian apologetics.

The term "creationism" is simply a ruse for Christian extremists.

 

[Hollie]

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Boilerplate nonsense that you read on one of your christian extremist websites... or was it from Harun Yahya?

 

[YWN666]

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.


Click the link for the entire article.

 

[YWN666]

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

There is no theory of creationism. The entirety of creationist dogma is rooted in Christian apologetics.

The term "creationism" is simply a ruse for Christian extremists.

Exactly. When mandatory prayer was banned from public schools, the religious wingnuts looked for a way to get it back in public schools and came up with creationism. When Creationism was shown to be a scam, they went back to the drawing board, retooled their "theory" and came up with Intelligent Design which eventually died a miserable death in a courtroom in Dover, PA. That trial embarrassed creationists on a national scale when it proved that those behind the creationism campaign were liars and frauds. The "wedge document" spells out their agenda and what they hoped to accomplish but oops! - someone leaked it to the public and their fraud was exposed.

PS - if anyone wants to read a good account of the Dover trial, read "The Devil in Dover" by Lauri Lebo.