why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:

​

Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

​

schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science. And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required. (Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)

​

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

​

John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.

​

---

C'mon JP, you're making a god out of naturalism... naturalism tries to find the underlying forces involved in driving processes, it doesn't care what it finds. You're starting with Genesis, that's why you're biased and naturalism isn't.