Unless folks here are willing to lose their misinformed understanding of what they *think* creation science is and actually learn something about what it really is, I cannot have a normal debate with anyone.
To assume that knowledge can only be acquired "solely" on the assumption of naturalism is to beg the question altogether. Scientists are suppose to "search for truth" wherever that search leads. It is at least possible that creation could be the true explanation of origins, and it is thus both premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude it from the domain of science by mere definition.
Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.
Furthermore, evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation. Evolution in the vertical sense--that is, "macroevolution," transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism--cannot be observed even if it is true, since it presumably requires immense spans of time. No instance of such macroevolution has ever been observed, in all recorded history, by any human being. Thus if creation is excluded from science because it cannot be observed in action, so must evolution be excluded on the same basis. Both the Creation Model and the Evolution Model are, at least potentially, true explanations of the scientific data related to origins, and so should be continually compared and evaluated in scientific studies related to origins.
Creation Science, therefore, is a perfectly valid area of scientific study. The Creation Model is as legitamate a scientific model as the Evolution Model
Creationists believe that both "scientific creationism" and "scientific evolutionism" should be taught in public schools., but not "religious creationism" or the humanistic and pantheistic implications of "religious evolutionism." (e.g., atheism, humanism, pantheism, liberal theology)
Nevertheless, evolutionism has been taught almost exclusively in the public schools for decades. This obviously unfair situation has been defended by saying that evolution is science. The fact is, however, that the Creation Model fits the real facts of science at least as well as the Evolution Model. At the very least, the two should be considered as equally valid scientific alternatives. The evidences and arguments, both pro and con, should all be presented in the schools, letting the students then make their own choices as to which model they believe best fits the available data. If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists maintain, they would surely have nothing to fear from such a two-model approach. Creationists are perfectly willing to let the issue be decided on the basis of the scientific evidence alone, so why aren't the evolutionists?
In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex funtioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exibit an array of similarities, and differences--similar structures for similar funtions, different structures for different functions.
This is, of course, exactly what we do see. Everything in the world of living organisms correlates, naturally and easily, with a creation origin. Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at the submicroscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their creator.
Evolution and creation are the only two comprehensive worldviews, defining diametrically opposing concepts concerning the origin and developement of all things. If evolution is true, there must be a universal principle operating in nature that brings organization to random systems and adds information to simple systems. Over the ages, if evolution is true, primeval particles have evolved into molecules and galaxies, inorganic chemicals have developed into living cells, and protozones have developed into human beings, so there must be some grand principle of increasing organization and complexity functioning in nature.
There is a wide-spread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what "creation science" is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closedmindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
For those who actually want to know what creation science really is, I recommend this book: "What is Creation Science" Morris/Parker. Until you are willing to learn something contrary to your own preconceived ideas about what you think it is, I have no direction here. I cannot debate with people who simply don't get it.
Dean H. Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University writes about this book that "Especially helpful are the authors' discussions of created order versus the order that arises from the inherent properties of matter operated on by time and chance, multivariate analysis of fossils, the punctuated equilibria theory, the concept of the "geologic column," and the vexing problem of evolution (in the vertical sense-macroevolution) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
He adds: "If after reading this book carefully and reflecting on its arguments one still prefers the evolutionary view, or still contends that the creationist view is religion and the evolutionary view is pure science, he should ask himself whether something other than the facts of nature is influencing his thinking about origins."
Remember that creationists are not denying microevolution. Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. We can clearly observe microevolution , natural selection etc. But we do not observe macroevolution.
I'll check back in a few weeks to see if anyone bothered to educate themselves as to what Creation Science really is. Only then can real debate ensue. I wasted an entire day here on this forum only to have to come to the realization that no one here has a realistic understanding of the truth about what a creationist is actually studying and why their study is every bit as much a scientific one--studying the very same earth and life forms that evolutionists study, using the very same scientific methods, data and evidence.
Goodbye for now.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
However, I recognize that there are also many women named Kelly, including my niece. For what it's worth, for some reason I assumed you were a woman. 
™ Version 4.2
