People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Kelly, you link to an article by the devoutly religious and, frankly, rather simple minded Casey Luskin.The thing about the I.D. movement of which he is part that's important to understand is that all the arguments that they put forward for intelligent design require a supernatural designer who is exempt from their own arguments. In other words, no natural designer (like us) could exist without itself having been designed, according to their arguments, because intelligence has all the attributes of complex function that they claim cannot be produced naturally.So, when Luskin and other I.D. people claim that their designer could be natural, they are being disingenuous.I.D. is a claim that a highly complex intelligent being can exist without being designed, but that less complex things like DNA can't. It's a silly and self-contradicting argument when you think about it, isn't it?

The origin of species, you mean? Of course biological evolution is about that. And chemical evolution is about the origin of all life. Who's denying what?What I was asking for on the other thread are the mechanisms of creation science theory in relation to the origin of species. For it to be a scientific theory, it requires these. So, what are they? And how do they operate to form species? And from what do the species come, if not other species? Give us some creation science!

That's what you're supposed to be explaining, isn't it? You say that you have a creation science which is nothing to do with gods. So, I'm asking for your mechanisms in your creation theory that explain the origin of species, and, if you want, the origin of life itself. But for you, they're the same.I know my mechanisms for evolution, and I gave them to you on the other thread. And I have observable scientific mechanisms for the origin of life as well. But you're supposed to be telling us what creation science is. So, how do the species we see around us come into existence according to your scientific theory if they don't descend from other species, and what are the mechanisms, and how do they work? Science requires such things of a coherent theory.

So, if your not studying how the objects came to be there, why is your discipline called "creation science"? Why not just "science"?You can hardly blame people for expecting it to have something to do with something being created if you stick that word on the front, can you?