Creationist theory

Hello, Syamsu.I am intending to debate with you only on the issue of whether creationism (as you describe it) is science, and on whether science has oppressed creationism (as you claim). There is much in your post that I won't address, because it is outside the realm of science. Our disagreement already begins with the first part of your first sentence. Creationism is not science at all, so it certainly is not valid science.Science starts by introducing its own technical terminology, and providing clear definitions of it terms. Creationism, as you have described it, fails on this requirement. I will comment in more detail when I come to the section where you introduce your basic terminology. This is clearly wrong. There are many people, not only scientists, who do not use creationism every day, and who get along quite well without it. We'll get to the "unscientific" part shortly. Here I want to disagree with your claim that creationism is oppressed by mainstream science. There is no such oppression. Science has nothing to say about creationism. Indeed, there is much that we value in our lives that is outside the realm of science, and about which science has nothing to say.What mainstream science criticizes, are the claims that creationism is science, and the attempts to have creationism taught in the science classroom. But this is not an oppression of creationism. This is simply a defense of science against those who would attempt to undermine its rigorous standards. Here you begin your account of creationism. You start with some primary terminology ("creator", "act of creation", "created object"). That's a good start. But if you want creationism to be a science, then you need to specify clear criteria for each of these terms. They should be criteria that anyone can apply, and such that there will be general agreement on how to apply the terms and on whether they were correctly applied. Ideally, there would also be clear relationships between the criteria for "creator", the criteria for "act of creation" and the criteria for "created object". You would then be able to use those relations to make empirically testable predictions about creation.As it is, however, you have no clear criteria for your terms. You admit as much when you admit that the application of your terms is subjective.Again, this is not intended as a criticism of your theory. There is much that we value that is subjective. However, it is a criticism of your claim that creationism is valid science. Quite clearly, it is not science at all.

I was quite precise.I will take it that you are unwilling to respind to my criticism, and prefer to dismiss it. In that case, I see no point in further comment.

But that is not what I said.Creationism, as you have described it, lacks well defined empirical procedures. It does not have an active empirical research program (in the sense of Lakatos), and thus does not make testable empirical predictions. For these reasons, it is not science.

I object to that assertion. That's a statement about individuals, including Modulous, kuresu, and me. I have never made such a determination against the Jews. I doubt that Modulous or kuresu have either.You might not have intended it as a charge about individuals. But that's the way it is written. I am asking you to withdraw that false accusation.

The discussion in this thread has demonstrated that you have no argument.I don't expect to be posting more in this thread. I only reentered the thread at Message 57 to call you on your false accusations.

If you are equating freedom with a term in an equation, some of us will see that as a denial of freedom.