Creation science or not?

Well, yes. All science is science.One aspect of science is that you go by the evidence, and if the evidence demonstrates you are wrong, you disguard your hypothesis.The problem with 'creation science' is that it takes the approch that the bible is 100% inerrent, and that the world is 12,000 years old or younger, and anything that disputes that must be wrong.For example, when it comes to carbon dating, they go through long and various methods to try to show that carbon dating is invalid, yet their 'test cases' are not valid test cases. They create fantasies to try to disprove the conclusions of the evidence, using bad science and out right lies. Any evidence that disproves their initial conclusion
(the world is young) is rejected. They wrap their conclusions up in scientific sounding babble, but it is meaningless.This is known as 'psusedo science'. The termingology mimmics science, but the methology is a rejection of science, and the scientific method.When it comes to trying to prove 'god did it', there are not testable claims. There is no way to DISPROVE it. It does not make predictions about what should be found, and therefore we can not test to see if something can be found that shows it COULDN'T happen. We can (and have) disproven the claim the world is only 12,000 years old. We can not test the claim 'god did it'.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-08-2006 10:30 AM

The problem still remains that ALl creation science starts with the conclusion, and rejects any information that does not fit into the conclusion.This is the exact opposite of science. Science uses evidence, comes up with a hypthosis, and then, after futhrer testing, if data is found that falsifies the origial hypthosis, rejects the hypothises.Creation science is bad science, and bad theology.

So far, no one has been able to come up with a relible way of looking for evidence of a creator. But, let me point out something for you.
For a scientific viewpoint, for something to be considered a theory, it has to have a way to falsify it. That means, to be able to have a theory of a creator/god, you will have to be able to come up with a way to test for a creator/god. Just think what would happen if one of these tests falsified a creator/god. How would you feel?Do you really want someone to come up with a way to prove that god does not exist? That would be part of the method for testing a model of a creator/god.

Well, that is a refreshing view. Unfortuneately, there are some things that just can not be tested for. There are many devote christians/jews/muslims that would not want a 'test' for god. Personally, I would love to see one. But, I don't see anybody agreeing on what a good test would be.

Actually, there is, if you stretch things, and look directly at the hebrew rather than the english translations.The word in genesis that is translated as 'create' is more like 'Formed' .. as a potter forms a pot. The word Adam is a generic term
meaning 'mankind', and is related to the word 'adamah', which means
'red clay'. Adamah is also close in root to the word 'Edom', which means both 'red' and 'blood'. So, you could say that god fashioned (out of preexisting material' mankind out of flesh and blood. If you wanted to stretch things, you could say that he fashioned mankind out of the primative ancestor that is the common ancestor to chimps and humans.When a language is very poetic, and very unspecific, a lot can be said with it that the modern more precise languages misinterpret. And, of course, people can read as literal when it is obvious in the original language it is a couple of allegories.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-14-2006 07:57 AM

I would put it that the agnostic atheist concludes that there is no god based on the fact there is no evidence that any exist

Well, it is even more basic that that. ID'ers are claiming that they have identified design. They have to come up with a methodogy to show that what they think is design is truly design from an intelligent source.They aren't trying to do that. The evidence for 'I.D.' tends to be attacks on evolution, and the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty.
(i.e. I can't understand how something like that could happen naturally).