On the Nature of Science

I have noted a paper in the links section that deals with the nature of science. It can be found at http://trshare.triumf.ca/...gs/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdfThe main point made is that scientific models should be judged on their ability to make correct predictions. If a model's predictions correspond to carefully obtained observations, the model is considered to be successful.The author also points out that the difference between science and religion is mainly that science is derived from observations while religion is derived from authoritative texts and persons.With this account in view, I would like to ask: What correct predictions have any creationist models produced?Also, if religion is based on arguments from (usually ancient) authority, why would one expect religion-based models to have predictive power and so qualify as science?perhaps in Is It Science ?Edited by Woodsy, : No reason given.

Thread copied to the On the Nature of Science thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.