many creation scientists do use some scientific methods. Because they may not fit into your personal view of science doesn't mean that it is not authentic. I know many creation scientists are involved in the study of creationism and the fallacy,(thanks for the correction), of evolution without using the Bible. They don't need to due to much evidence all around the universe for creationism. The think actually some of my replies have answered some of your questions but I would be glad to answer them...I had just gotten caught up in replying to your other posts. It's not dishonest to point out how strongly Newton believed in creation because he lived before toe was made up. I just believe he was so bright that he would have exposed it for what it is; very poor science. Anyways, I have forgotten your what your questions were...
they were as follows:
**************************
fabian, a few questions:
1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.
2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.
3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.
Thank you.
**************************
and, no: nothing you have posted in the interim has even vaguely touched on these questions.
Fabian,
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
1. consistent (internally and externally)
2. parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
3. useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
4. empirically testable and falsifiable
5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
6. correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
7. progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
8. tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most (ideally: ALL) of the above criteria. The fewer criteria which are matched, the less scientific a given concept or explanation is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses.
A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists:
1. Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation.
2. Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations without redundant parts.
3. Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
4. Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
5. Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", an "a priori" axiomatic CONCLUSION, instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
In fine:
Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is conventionally understood and utilized.
Basically, fabian - that you and self-described "creation scientists" call your untestable omphaloskepticisms "science" does not equate to them BEING science.