Summations Only

You have presented no evidence, only your conclusions based on your religious beliefs masquerading as science.And you have both attacked the scientific method and tried to co-opt its conclusions.You can't have it both ways. Either you accept the methods of science and accept its conclusions, or you don't. Creationists try to pick and choose, and that is laughable.

Here are a couple of definitions for you to learn from:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

That you keep harping on the "inadequacy" of the scientific method and misusing the well-defined terms of science speaks poorly for your knowledge of either.Is it too much to ask that you actually learn something about science and how it works before posting long rants against it?

Its been said before, not all interpretations are of equal worth.Some interpretations follow the data where it leads. These explain all the relevant data and ignore no relevant data, and they produce successful predictions. These interpretations become known as scientific theories, and there is virtually always only one successful theory at a time. There may be multiple competing hypotheses, but only one survives the process and goes on to become a scientific theory.Other interpretations ignore large amounts of contradictory data and produce no successful predictions. By ignoring contradictory data these interpretations go against the scientific method, and by 1) not explaining all the relevant data and 2) producing no successful predictions, these interpretations cannot be considered to be scientific theories. They are best described as failed hypotheses.

Creationist sites typically don't permit this type of debate. If you go against the local dogma you are banned rather quickly.

Just what is "the necessary conclusion of evolution?"

I thought so--you have no clue what "evolution" really is. Your definition is biased by your worldview and way too much time spent with creationist literature or websites.A definition from the web:Evolution:

the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Note, there is nothing about origins in there. Evolution works just fine whether there were natural causes for origins or whether Zeus poofed things into existence.(When one opines about science without knowing what one is talking about, one looks pretty silly.)

But this information can also tell you the parent populations and the daughter populations.

One aspect of the scientific method is falsifiability.How could the creationism/design hypothesis be falsified?What test or what evidence could do that?

This thread was started with the object of showing that creationism is scientific. That effort has failed.Instead we are being told that the scientific method is flawed and we need to degrade its definition to include any old nonsense.Behe got nailed on this same tactic during the Dover trial--he had to admit that his personal definition of science was sufficiently broad to include astrology.Creationists should just admit that what they are claiming is religious belief, and stop trying to co-opt the good reputation that science has earned over the centuries. Instead they seek to legitimize their religious beliefs by claiming they are doing science, and using the scientific method, while they are doing the exact opposite.

And with this post, as with so many others, you affirm that what you are doing is peddling religious belief.Religious belief is the exact opposite of science.

That has nothing to do with whether there is science in creationism. Religious belief uses methods exactly opposite to those used by the scientific method. You are trying to tear down the scientific method to sneak your religious belief in as science. It isn't working.Like other creationists, you seem to think that by attacking science you somehow support your religious beliefs. That is false. To support your religious belief scientifically you have to present evidence and use the scientific method--and that's something you have not done.

Whatever.

The only science in creationism is creation "science" -- which is the exact opposite of real science.Real science starts with evidence from the natural world and seeks to understand it through the scientific method.Creation "science" starts with a conclusion based on religious belief and seeks to reinforce that belief through cherry-picking data, quote mining, ignoring contrary evidence, and any other methods they can come up with. They have to do this because 1) the methods used by science do not deal with the supernatural and 2) most claims based on religious belief that can be tested (i.e., the flood and young earth) have been disproved.And then there's intelligent design -- a subset of creation "science" fraudulently designed to hide the religion in the hope of fooling school boards and courts.