I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm not a creationist. I say that particularly to make sure it's not a school of thought that I'm attempting to get creationism more credibility, I'm not. This topic exists to answer one question I've been debating with a friend. Is Creationism Science?
Obviously creationism gets largely misrepresented by die-hard religious fanatics. The science gets lost to faith and faith isn't science. Intelligent Design is more appropriately represented as science most of the time, but even then too often people use faith and unfounded evidence as supporting facts for it, which skews the viewers outlook.
I don't want to get into the validity of creationism supporting evidence I'd just like to know if Creationism and/or Inteligent Design is Science. I believe it is because it is a theory with supporting evidence and only other theories disprove it. There are no facts to my understanding that disprove it or it wouldn't be finding its way into schools.
My belief is that it's science, albeit a bad theory.
My counter argument's belief is that it's not science at all as it doesn't have enough supporting evidence, testing, and results showing it as acceptable. I was under the impression that "amount" of supporting evidence wasn't as relevant as their being any though.
Look forward to viewing responses, thank you.
™ Version 4.2