Creation science or not?

That's exactly the point I'm making. The IDists claim that they have already detected design, so the next logical step is to identify the designer and try to communicate with him/her/it. Since ID isn't doing what science would do, ID isn't science.(By the way, try using the little green Reply button in the lower right-hand corner, so we can track down who you're replying to.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any satisfactory explaination for these systems. In the case of the blood clotting system, Behe mentions that an experiment was carried out using rats to show that a blood clotting system can function with proteins removed. However the side effect of this was that the rats couldn't reproduce, a slight evolutionary disadvantage if you ask me.

---

The glaring error Behe makes here is that he assumes that the elements of complex "irreducably complex" biological systems were added sequentially; "a + b + c + d = IC system".That's not at all how evolution has happened, or has to happen.

"So does creation science. The physical evidence people feel as the Holy Spirit falls on them is real. Whether it is God or not, is what they want to find out by using the scientific method. Many unexplained events, such as healings, and all the supernatural phenomena claimed in the bible, can be investigated. This makes it science."Creation science is not science, neither is supernatural science. Just because something can be investigated doesnt mean its science. Science is based on postulating a theory and then coming up with facts to support it. The bible is based on ghosts, metaphysical beings, unicorns, dragons and other supernatural phenomenon, none of which have ever been proven to exist.Creationism is based on the bible, not fact. The bible itself is completely open to interpretation no matter what any bible thumping scholars tell you. Thats why there are probably 50+ different sects of christianity, all based on different interpretations of the bible.

Seems to me that a lot of scientists are into a game of saying that creationism is not science, and on that basis dismissing it as unworthy of their or anyone's attention. Now I was trained in science, and I do think that naturalistic processes do not explain all about the origins of life and of species. Nonetheless, I'm getting to where I'm willing to say, OK, creation(ism) is not science, if you want to define science that way. creation(ism) is beyond science. But the consequence / corollary to that would be: science does not and cannot explain everything in the natural world, especially the origins of life and species.How does this sit, in general, with people who call themselves creationists? How does it sit with scientists?Thanks
Juve

The reason that we say creationism is not science, is that creationism makes no testable predictions.Whether or not creationism is worthy of a person's attention is up to that person. What scientists object to, is an attempt to force teaching of creationism into the science curriculum. Science does not claim to be able to explain everything. However, it does explain the origin of species rather well. It currently does not explain the origin of life, although there are hypotheses.

Well, it is even more basic that that. ID'ers are claiming that they have identified design. They have to come up with a methodogy to show that what they think is design is truly design from an intelligent source.They aren't trying to do that. The evidence for 'I.D.' tends to be attacks on evolution, and the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty.
(i.e. I can't understand how something like that could happen naturally).

No they say "it's not science and therefore not worthy of the attention of scientists.