[fabian]

maybe I didn't say it correctly...the definition of science would clearly include the study of creationism. I didn't mean that the word creationism is included in the definition. I'm not misrepresenting the definition at all. All anyone needs do is read the defintion...it's clear for everyone. Your confusion is trying to exclude a very interesting field of science. Can't you be just a little more honest.

[Dante Alighieri]

Science is the systematic method of explaining natural phenomena observed either directly or indirectly. Anything that is non-naturalistic, not tentative, and unfalsifiable is not science. Therfore, creationism is not science.

[Coyoteman]

maybe I didn't say it correctly...the definition of science would clearly include the study of creationism. I didn't mean that the word creationism is included in the definition. I'm not misrepresenting the definition at all. All anyone needs do is read the defintion...it's clear for everyone. Your confusion is trying to exclude a very interesting field of science. Can't you be just a little more honest.

Sorry, but I don't know how to study creationism.

I am an archaeologist, and all my data shows the earth is far older than 6000 or so years, and that there was no global flood. My colleagues all over the world have found the same thing. The initial tenets of creation science fail the test of science. The early geologists came to the same conclusion nearly 200 years ago, and they were creationists working long before Darwin.

The reason science can't study god/gods/creationism/supernatural data is there is no way to detect or measure the phenomena.

And that is what science does, observes, measures, and records natural phenomena, and then theorizes about that data and their interrelationships.

Since you bring up the issue -- "Your confusion is trying to exclude a very interesting field of science" -- just how do you propose that science measures or otherwise scientifically quantifies this supernatural data? The supernatural is that which cannot be measured or otherwise recorded in some manner. Why would you expect science to deal with that in any way? And how?

I think Heinlein said it well:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973