If science is "by definition" philosophical, then why do I not see mention of this in any definition of "science"?
Or ... wait, of course, this is the
fundie use of the phrase "by definition". Meaning "not by definition, but I wish it was, 'cos then something I've said would be true".
Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism,
If you think you have a definition of science which
includes the ravings of Hovind, Morris, Gish
et al, please produce it.
when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori.
But of course we do not claim to know empirical truth
a priori, which is why you cannot quote us doing so and have to resort to making stuff up.
Preceding a blatant falsehood with the phrase "the fact is" doesn't make it any truer, you know.
It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question.
No, not really. Not more so than the question "what is a pig?" is philosophical: and yet it is perfectly possible to separate pigs from philosophy.
Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes.
And yet they are all able to agree that biology, physics and chemistry are sciences and that chocolate cake, the movie
Gone With The Wind and the number 7 are not sciences.
Just because scientists have not reached complete accord on the
exact definition of science does not allow creationists to arbitrarily go around claiming that stuff is science when it clearly isn't.
So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.
Or, to put it another way, "for evolutionists to claim that chocolate cake is not science simply begs the question".