I have no argument with any branch of science and frankly I'm even inclined to view science as a theological pursuit, in that through it we can learn about the creator by learning about the creation.
Viewing science as a way to learn about the creator is fine, as long as you are following the scientific method when you do science. Creationists tend to be anti-science because they place scripture or the bible as higher forms of knowledge.
You can't have it both ways; either you follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads, using the scientific method, or you follow other forms of "knowledge." And those forms are almost always non-empirical and non-verifiable. Most resolve back into history to "trust me" at some point. You wouldn't buy a used car on "trust me" would you?
I just disagree with you on the idea that the only evidence that is to be considered is scientific.
That's the rub, eh? What evidence do you feel is worth considering, and how do you determine that?
From the following list, which would you trust, and why?
What it comes down to is you can decide among the various claims by empirical evidence, and using the scientific method. If you choose to ignore empirical evidence, and to ignore the scientific method, you can't claim to be doing science. You are in fact doing just the opposite; you are, in fact, anti-science.
Creationists normally bristle at being called anti-science, but the evidence shows clearly that they reject the scientific method and scientific evidence when those contradict their chosen beliefs.
If that isn't anti-science I don't know what is.
And here's more evidence: the AnswersinGenesis
Statement of Faith (first part only):
See any science in there? Anywhere?
No, you don't. What you see is scripture and the bible being placed above empirical evidence and the scientific method--no matter what that evidence may be.
That's anti-science in anybody's book.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
