Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

"Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible.If someone has faith then they have 100% certaintyIf they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary.Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence.Therefore "Creationist Science" is impossible.

How can the scientific method in any way that anybody understands it - (creating hypotheses based on physical evidence and then verifying or refuting these hypotheses by searching for more physical evidence incl experimentation?) - can possibly be undertaken by anyone who has absolute certainty (i.e. faith) in the conclusions of any evidence relating to their area of faith before, or even irrespective of, any evidence??Creationists are an obvious target but the same applies to any faith position that relates to the physical world incl faith based 100% certainty in evolution.Creationists would argue that evolution is faith based position which it is not and I am happy to debate that point.However what is indisputable is that creationism is a faith based position.
What I would also argue is indesputable is that evidence based investigation (i.e. science) is impossible if you have 100% absolute certainty regarding the conclusions of any physical evidence before you even have it."Creationist Science" or any other faith based search for objective truth is impossible (whether that makes it oxymoronic or not.......)

You are practically proving my point for me.
Your "facts" are faith based beliefs. To reverse your claim. They have no more claim to being facts for their being in the Bible!Your faith based beliefs preclude you from drawing any conclusions based on the physical evidence that oppose your "known facts" no matter what evidence there may be. Objectivity of any sort is impossible. Any evidence must logically prove what you "know" to be true.Therefore you are not investigating nature at all. You are looking only to verify what you believe to be the truth. That is not science. For the scientific method to apply there has to be the option for the data to refute the theory!Do scientists ever do this form of "bad science"? Yes they do sometimes. BUT I would argue they get found out pretty quickly!The key point is that in the case of any faith based position (e.g. creationism) it is logically impossible to follow the scientific method in any meaningful way."Creationist Science" is impossible.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well said Jar. You cannot have tentative faith!!!

A key concept of science is refutation.
There are many examples of widely beiieved scientific theories being eventually refuted by opposing physical evidence.
Has "creation science" ever refuted any of it's theories?
No because it is not science in any way that is recognisable as science.What is the scientific method that "creation scientists" are using?As far as comparisons with historical figures goes - If the only evidence for the existence of Napoleon was a single uncorroborated source that also proclaimed various outlandish and physically impossible events - then yes I would seriously question his existence. That is not the case.

Really? Has Glen Morton ever found any evidence that disagrees with anything said in the bible at all?Do real scientists ever behave in the way you describe? Yes they do.My point is that ANY research taken from a faith based point of view can logically ONLY ever lead to conclude that which it already believes to be true. Even if in fact it is competely false.If anyone has any examples of "creationist scientists" refuting anything from the bible I would be delighted to hear them.Can you have real science without even the possibility of refutation?I would say No.

Even a YE creationist can do science if it relates to (for example) cucumber average size and the effect of increased sunlight!! I never disputed that.My point is that ANY faith position is logically unable to scientifically investigate any area that overlaps with that faith position.Can a Christian who believes faithfully that God formed life, scientifically study Abiogenesis? I would say no.

Exactly. His perspective is not that the bible can be wrong but that creationist have interpreted it wrongly. My argument is that he can never logicaly do any scientific research that conflicts with his own faith position on the bible. Not somebody elses.

Faith's large reply to the actual OP is a better demonstration of my point than I could have hoped for.
An absolute conviction in the bible as fact despite no physical evidence to suport this and the subsequent inability to objectively even consider any evidence that contradicts these "facts" and opposing conclusions. This is scientific method in reverse and as such not science.To those who keep saying that there are many Christian scientists in answer to my OP - I am not saying that there are not. I am saying that any faith position precludes the person of that position undertaking scientific investigation into any area that may conflict with that faith.Anyone who believes in evolution (or anything ele) on faith would have the same problem. It applies to any position of faith.The difference is that evolution is not based on faith.Read Faith's post above if you want to know why it is impossible for creationists to undertake scientific investigation because I cannot demonstrate it better than that.

Exactly!
And another major difference worth pointing out is that all those frauds were eventually exposed by.......scientists doing real science!!! So boo sucks to the whole scientific conspiracy against God theory.I would also like to say that there are numerous examples in the history of science of scientists being certain of something but the evidence being against them - Hoyle's steady state universe, the existence of the aether etc. etc.
Is it even imaginable that the faith based position of YE creationists could be even dented by new evidence?Edited by AdminJar, : fix quotebox