Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific?
Well i think I'll break the mold here and disagree with most of the other posters. I think XXXX science is a very useful thing. Here's a quick list of perfectly valid XXXX sciences, with the XXXX in brackets:
complexity and self-organization biology (well... you know what I mean)
Top-down artifical intelligence
Bottom-up artifical intelligence
Some of these XXXXs will be solved through empirical testing (i.e. top-down versus bottom-up AI), some describe different approaches to tackling the same problem (i.e. reductionist versus complexity/self-organization), and some mayreflect the world view or personal taste of the scientist (i.e. holistic biology for the hippies, computational biology for the nerds, etc).
Creationist science doesn't fit in there simply because it is obviously an intellectual dead-end, unlike all of the others which have at least some kind of philosophical interest or practical use which spurs invention and provides interesting results.
a label that indicates predetermined conclusions
I suppose it is inevitable that "reductionist biology" will find reductionist conclusions, "holistic biology" will find holistic conclusions, "mathematical biology" will find incomprehensible conclusions, etc. That's not the problem with creationist biology. The problem is that it finds "wrong" conclusions.
So if vicariance biogeography is to give way to panbiogeography such as to "stew" Gould's juices for a new name to the then no longer persisting heterodoxy that Kitcher leaves Genesis Creationism as dead for, no matter the ID, it may be that "creation science" of Mick's denoting may NOT be wrong or effectively dead sounding but only a limitation as you said EVEN IF IT has "conclusions" built in. It will depend on whether the conclusions go too far of course... Creation Science would have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology etc.
Indeed, but "something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology" is precisely what creation science lacks, by definition. Creation science in its own words is nothing more than a new way to teach theology. This is why the discovery institute lists as some of its five year objectives:
quote:to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism... Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation... Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
The limitation is self-imposed and it's definitional in the concept of creation science. The extra thing they would "have to have" is what is provided by one of the XXXXs in my list - a scientific approach rooted in an empirical research methodology. Those XXXXs are not just "endearing descriptions" as you call them, they are denotive of an empirical research methodology which is definitionally lacking in creation science.
cladisitically (for me at least) the declination in illustatrations of Amphibian grades CAN NOT match Mammal or Bird Grades no matter the Fish in whatever the translation in space and form-making comparison. This would have to specify some specific biogeography AND the notion of BARAMIN would have to be practical where the word "species" would not thus then be (as artifical selection would have been applied and THEN IN CREATION BIOLOGY new hybrid decriptors enjoined while this would have to have been missed in a secular world of tomarrow land(whose to say how this will "pan" out..))...
I think the importance of an empirical methodology is pretty well illustrated in the quote above. You make a claim about grades in fish, and hope beyond reason that a nebulous undefined and quite likely unnecessary concept (baramin) is (somehow) going to be of practical use. Perhaps if you had more of the XXXXs from my list in your armoury of research strategies you would have more success in describing and explaining differences within the vertebrate groups? Because as of yet I see nothing of interest or promise in the concepts or applicaitons of baraminology. It is merely a methodologically empty XXXX that creationists have invented, in order to cover up their ignorance. It is surprising that you would pin any hopes on it!
Otherwise Mick would be correct that "creation biology" is just 'wrong'
Now, let's disentangle your post and see what you're getting at here. According to you, in order to be of any use, creation science/baraminology must
a) "have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology"
b) "have to specify some specific biogeography"
c) "have to be practical"
d) must create "new hybrid decriptors"
Since, by your own admission, it has none of these things, and since any assessment of the published works of the DI must agree with you, then it seems that you think I was correct when I said that creation biology is just wrong. Fine.
I do wonder whether the recent turn to biological research in creationism is going to help out where other seemingly non religious alternatives struggle for a voice...
I doubt it strongly. First of all, as you document, there has been no turn to biological research in creationism; second, the creationist movement is clearly far more highly america/western-oriented than the academic community. The suggestion that the likes of the discovery institute are interested in promoting third world access to scholarly journals is frankly laughable. Perhaps they will give out knock-down prices for pandas and people maybe?
On this scenario I am attempting to forecast "ideology" would expand but 'belief' may not.
What makes you think that biogeographers in central america have any interest whatsoever in the ideologies of creationism or intelligent design? Do you mean that the discovery institute might be able to "buy converts" by targeting poor countries, or what?