[grey_whiskers]

The argument for Creation does not accept scientific method and deduction as a proof even though the the very civilization they live in was comprised and accomplished with scientific method and deduction.

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

There are passages in Hilaire Belloc's The Great Heresies which take the opposite view (faith is necessary to defend reason; as well as the argument of G.K. Chesterton (IIRC in The Everlasting Man) which defend empiricism--to paraphrase, "If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

Cheers!

[jec41]

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.

However I will give that creationests attempt to use science to disprove science.

If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?