The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

quote:

---

A teacher of a geography may tell his class that there is a country named england. The students accept his word as truth. Later they may encounter evidence that supports this as true. It is the same way with creation science. Although I think I already know the truth, this does not make it impossible to objectively evaluate facts.

---

Allegedly.What if we had a teacher who taught his class all about England: with its icy winters, tall mountains, sherpas, llama's and monks.The students may still accept his word, because he is the teacher, and they the students.But when the students go out into the world and discover that England is not, in fact, Tibet, they will have to face a choice: believe according to their own experience, or beleive according to the faith they had in the teacher.And that is why creation science is no science at all. Its still blind, dogmatic faith and eyes tight shut.

Well, maybe, but what makes me uncomfortable is the question of what constitutes creation. Creationists can reasonably argue that the big bang is a kinda creation.The nub of the matter is that creationists claim to know this BECAUSE they have special access to supernatural, otherworldly knowledge, rather than BECAUSE they have observed nature and constructed a model.