One of the side effects of the use of scientific methodology is the identification and documentation of evidence. Every endeavor which is truly scientific (as opposed to sham) will have generated documentation of a body of evidence. That was one of the points I used to raise about the "creation model" in the "Two Model Approach": If it were an actual model, a construct created from observation of the evidence for the purpose of explaining that evidence (which is basically what a theory is), then there should exist a body of evidence for it, so why would creationists do everything they possibly could to
avoid presenting any of that evidence that they claimed to have?
In the recent thread calling for the presentation of positive evidence for "creation theory" (which name implicit claims that it was constructed based on the evidence, in which case there exists such evidence), none of the creationists could present any evidence. The best they could come up with was to repeatedly invoke the Bible (which does not in itself constitute scientific evidence, nor could anyone demonstrate that it referenced any physical evidence) and to state that it appears that there is design in nature.
So if there's no evidence, how could you claim creationism to be scientific?
I agree with RAZD. Propose a new thread for this topic.
™ Version 4.2
