Creation as Science

You do know how the scientific method works, do you not? What do you think a hypothesis is? How does one test a hypothesis using the scientific method?Before we dig too deep into the evo v. creo debate perhaps we should first agree on how science is done, don't you agree?

So describe how the scientific method SHOULD be followed, and why. Perhaps you could use a simple example to illustrate your points. So how do we determine, in a scientific manner, what variables or variations are in effect? So creationists are infallible, and anything they say is automatically true without the need to test it? Is that what you are saying?

I was also curious as to how archaeologist defines "modern science". We would be going backwards if archaeologist was using a strawman version of "modern science" and then showing how creation fit that strawman.

This is hurdle number one. In reading the article linked in the OP it has become quite clear that you don't know how the scientific method works, the foundation of "secular" science. For instance, in your article you say:"1. Principle of evidence - any scientific statement should be proved. Without objective and conclusive proofs any scientific statement is only a speculative guess."You get it wrong right away. Nothing in science is "proven". Proof is for math and alcohol. Scientific statements must be testable and potentially falsifiable. That is the requirement, not proof.Then we get to the second principle:"2. Principle of possible non-authenticity (falsification principle) - any scientific statement can be rejected by contradicting data and facts. In science, as well as in any kind of activity, there is a place for errors and faults. Science in the process of its development rejects its conclusions and deductions, which appeared to be false. The science is constant doubt. Both force of science and its main difference from nonscientific views of cognition are included into this process.4"This is partially wrong. The falsification principle is that you must be able to describe specific conditions under which your theory is false. Mind you, these potential observations need not be observed, only potentially observable. For example, a mammal-bird transitional fossil or a rabbit in Cambrian strata are both potential observations that would falsify the theory of evolution. So what are some potential observations in the fossil record that would falsify creationism? Can you name any? Or are there no potential observations that would falsify Creationism?So to sum up, in order for Creationism to meet the requirements of modern science it needs to be testable and falsifiable. Without these two basic things it fails to meet the requirements of modern "secular" science.Reading further into your article, it appears that you throw both of these things out the window. You simply proclaim creationism to be true by fiat, therefore no need for testing or the naming of potential observations that would falsify creationism:"We can question how the universe or the things on earth work but for the creative act, we do not need to waste the time for the answer is already supplied for us10"So you already have the answer, so why use science to test it? Is that your view? Do you think it is a scientific view?