Creation Science and the Methodology of Scientific Inquiry

Hi TC,
I like it but I am curious as to your target audience?
I think you could also extend the essay to include the problems with intelligent design i.e. no testable or falsifiable hypothesis.Also I appreciate the emphasis on falsifying hypotheses and that science is not the attempt to a priori exclude other hypothesis for an aesthetic or favored hypothesis/theory.

Then I am obviously too thick to realize who the target audience is I truly doubt hardcore creationists will be particularly enthusiastic about an essay explaining why creation science is not science. I do favor TC's approach of explaining falsifiability as a criteria..in case one or two creationist/IDists actually tries the mental game of seeing if they can come up with a testable hypothesis and defining what would falsify their hypothesis.

quote:

---

Well I would assume that it is written for creationists who beleive that their views can be scientifically supported and who care about scientific credibility.

---

Now that is a small audience!But you are probably right...I have heard rumors that some creationists sites no longer post Kent Dr.Dino Hovind's crap because it is so fallacious that even they do not want to be associated.I still think TC's essay would reach a broader group by including Intelligent Design as that group has not presented a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. But creationists for the most part are completely lacking in background and understanding of scientific methodology so hopefully TC can reach a few...not to necessarily change their minds but at least get some of them away from the "evilusion aint true cuz my cat did not give birth to a cow" type of arguing.