Is creationism science?

I think that we have to be very careful wih this example.Firstly Humphrey's scenario is just plain weird and not based directly on the Bible whcih certainly doesn't talk about the planets forming out of water. Now if it had turned out that the planets were just lights in the sky, he might have had a point. The Bible doesn't show any knowledge of what planets are.Secondly it's just plain nuts to describe the other scientists working on the issue as "evolutionists". Evolution has nothing to do with planetary formation.Secondly I'd like a good idea from a neutral source of just how bad the other predictions were - it would be odd if the scientific community were unaminous on it. For all I know there could be other estimates, better than Humphreys'.Finally it would be worth asking if Humphreys made any other predictions and how they turned out. We already know that Humphreys is willing to use completely unscientific arguments. So he could have a whole load of failures which just don't get mentioned.

Yes, I was just thinking that Barnes' claims had been thoroughly discredited. Since Humpheys' prediction rests on assuming that Barnes was correct, the success appears to be a coincidence at best.