[Alberta's Child]

Bottom line remains the same: the theory of evolution is science. "Creationism" (or whatever you guys call it these days) is not. End of discussion...

Actually, "Creationism" is no less scientific than "evolution," when you pare them down to their most basic elements.

The fact that you call "the theory of evolution" science is a good illustration of why this is so. Evolution -- regardless of whether or not it is factually correct -- suffers from the same inherent flaw as "global warming." Neither theory can really be tested in a manner that is conducive to the scientific method -- i.e., in a controlled environment, with results that can be disseminated to others and replicated by others.

With the exception of some limited cases involving simple micro-organisms that reproduce very quickly and can be observed/documented in a laboratory environment, most of what comprises "the theory of evolution" these days will always be just a theory because it simply can't be adequately tested.

[BroJoeK]

"Actually, "Creationism" is no less scientific than "evolution," when you pare them down to their most basic elements."

See my post #71 above. You too obviously have no clue what the word "science" means. You guys really ought to go back to school and lean something, so you're not constantly embarrassing yourselves with stupidities.

Virtually all of science is theory, based on evidence. That includes the theory of evolution.

"Creationism" is not a theory, and it's not based on ANY physical evidence. At best, it might be a hypothesis, which can never be proved scientifically.

But in truth, "creationism" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It's just an assertion based on religious or philosophical belief. It's not science.

Personally, I believe that God created the heavens, the earth and all its creatures. Science only tries to explain how He did it.

[Coyoteman]

Actually, "Creationism" is no less scientific than "evolution," when you pare them down to their most basic elements.

The fact that you call "the theory of evolution" science is a good illustration of why this is so. Evolution -- regardless of whether or not it is factually correct -- suffers from the same inherent flaw as "global warming." Neither theory can really be tested in a manner that is conducive to the scientific method -- i.e., in a controlled environment, with results that can be disseminated to others and replicated by others.

With the exception of some limited cases involving simple micro-organisms that reproduce very quickly and can be observed/documented in a laboratory environment, most of what comprises "the theory of evolution" these days will always be just a theory because it simply can't be adequately tested.

You have a large number of errors in these three short paragraphs.

• Creationism is not a science because it does not follow the scientific method. Being based on revelation and scripture, rather than evidence and testing, it is in fact the opposite of science.
• The theory of evolution does follow the scientific method, and does rely on evidence and testing of that evidence.
• Scientific theories do not have to be tested "in a controlled environment." If they did all of cosmology would be out the window.
• But evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory anyway.
• You seem to think that the theory of evolution is a failure because it can't advance beyond the "theory" stage. In reality, there is no higher level in science for a theory to attain. A theory is the highest level of explanation there is. And before you bring up laws, theories explain laws!

There is a long list of definitions of these terms on my FR home page that might help you understand these things better. Take a look.