Is creationism science?

Here's a prediction from The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) that will be verified within a couple years or so: The 1975 value for Mercury's magnetic field was obtained by Mariner 10, the last spacecraft to make a close approach. The Messenger spacecraft is expected to approach Mercy in 2008 and 2009. Projecting Humphreys' figures forward, in 2008 Humphreys' figures say that Mercury's magnetic moment should be 4.0% smaller than its 1975 value.It should be noted that Humphreys' theory that all planetary magnetic fields are gradually declining is strongly contradicted by the record of oscillating magnetic fields in the earth's crust, both on continents and in sea floor striping.--Percy

Well, now I'm a little confused. If Humphreys conclusions follow from his assumptions rather than from anything the Bible says, then how is his proposal based upon Biblical evidence? I mean, wasn't that the whole point of the exercise, to show how Biblical evidence leads to scientific predictions that can and have been validated?--Percy

Hi 4Pillars,I'm having trouble making sense out of your position. You seem to be saying that science agrees with the Biblical account. It doesn't. That's why there's a debate. It is because science disagrees with the Biblical account that evangelical Christians object to the teaching of some scientific theories in public schools, primarily the theory of evolution. Were there no such disagreement, evangelical Christians would not be objecting to the teaching of evolution. The Bible talks of only one origin, that of all life over several of the six days of creation. Science believes there were two origins, one that represents the first life, and another that is actually many origins, the origins of all species, both extinct and extant, over the approximately 3.8 billion years of earth history.While there is much speculation, science hasn't reached any conclusions about the origin of life. Most speculation involves an aqueous environment, but not all. For example, some speculate about mineral or clay origins for life.Concerning the origin of species, land species evolve on land, not water.Because of all this, it would not be correct to state that science agrees that all living creatures originated from the waters, because science does not believe this is the case.Trying to bring discussion back toward the topic, a necessary strategy for promoting creationism in public schools is to hide or disguise its religious foundation. For that reason, when lobbying school boards, legislatures and text book publishers, creationists never mention religion in any way, especially not God and the Bible, for to bring religion into the presentation would lose outright. The constitutional requirement of separation of church and state forbids our government from favoring any particular religious view, and so arguing for creationism using religious arguments can only fail.So what creationists do is the precise opposite of what you're doing: they argue that the scientific evidence actually supports a young earth and a global flood, and that evolution and geology are wrong. To this end they write their own "scientific" papers and stage their own "scientific" conferences. Despite these efforts, courts have consistently ruled that creationism, and more recently ID, is just thinly disguised religion.--Percy

I think you meant when God made the creatures, but that's really beside the point because you're continuing to make the same mistake. This thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" Every time you make religious arguments in this thread it makes clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!"--Percy

Perhaps it would help if we agreed upon a definition of science. This is from something I posted once before over at Message 144. The reasons usually offered for why creationism is not science are:

• It isn't natural because it makes reference to supernatural forces and/or entities such as miracles and God.
  ​
• It has no evidence from the natural world supporting its viewpoints.
  ​
• It isn't falsifiable since no evidence can be imagined which would convince believers that it is false.
  ​
• It doesn't follow the scientific method because instead of beginning with a hypothesis for an observed phenomenon, creationism begins with a Biblical story.
  ​
• Evidence that contradicts creationist views is either ignored or is labeled a mystery that will one day be resolved, with the result that creationism explains almost nothing about the natural world that it is science's task to explain.
  ​
• Creationists for the most part do not do science. There's a sort of half-hearted effort to provide the appearance of science by writing scientific-sounding papers and holding conferences, but there is no effort to reconcile their viewpoints with each other or with the scientific community itself, and most creationist effort is spent lobbying legislatures, school boards and text book publishers, and defending themselves in court cases.

--Percy

I do happen to agree with you that science cannot explain everything, but I never remotely said anything like this. I never said anything remotely like this, either. If true wouldn't this mean that unless you can create a time machine to observe events in the past like creation and the flood, all you can come up with is a best guess and speculations? Obviously there's a flaw in your thinking somewhere, because otherwise you're arguing that creationism isn't science. Since you believe creationism is science, why do you keep offering arguments against your own position. If you were a boxer you'd be punching yourself, so knock yourself out! The thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" I listed the qualities of science and provided an outline of the scientific method, then provided an assessment of how creationism measured up against them. Have you any response or rebuttal that is on-topic and that is actually favorable to your position?--Percy