I've extracted the following from Percy's award winning
message 227.
Percy writes:
In other words, scientific progress builds on what went before. New ideas build upon and modify old ideas. And so we can ask if the currently accepted ideas of Creation Science follow this normal pattern of science.
Before considering this question one must ask, "What are the currently accepted ideas of Creation Science?" We must know which ideas are currently accepted so that we can examine how those ideas have changed over time in order to can see whether it was a process of refinement or not.
But in attempting to answer this question we quickly discover a problem: there is no set of broadly accepted ideas within Creation Science. There are Creationists who accept a young earth, and Creationists who accept an old earth. There are those who accept hyrdroplate theory and those who accept vapor canopy theory. There are those who believe radioactive decay rates change, and those who don't. There are those who accept ID, and those who don't.
Since we can't even find an answer to the question asking which are the currently established principles within Creation Science, it seems safe to say that the history of Creation Science does not bear any resemblance to the normal patterns of scientific progress.
I thought this merited its own topic.
Of course, the topic title question refers to accepted by "creation scientists", not to accepted by "mainstream scientists".
Moose
{Submitted to "Is It Science?" forum}
™ Version 4.2