RE: By that criterion, we can’t solve murders, either, because we can only look at evidence in the presence and have no ability to look in the past to see what “really” happened.
___________________
I don’t think the creationists are saying that at all. If I understand them correctly ( and I do try so that I don’t miscomprehend them), they are saying that because origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events, one’s INITIAL PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUMPTIONS will come into play regarding how one interprets the data, such as fossils.
They argue that both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different INTERPRETATIONS are devised to explain what happened in the past.
So, they insist that Creationists produce scientific theories but the Biblical account is used as a starting point, just as Evolutionists produce scientific theories but pure materialism without any reference to any external intelligent being are their starting point.
Creationists then insist that their resulting theories make TESTABLE predictions many of which have been successful.
Example of creationists theories with successful predictions include Dr Russell Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted planetary magnetic field observations, including the recent measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field.
So, Creationists see the Bible as an historical Document. That is events described in the Bible are real historical events. The Bible is not just a collection of religious stories or a collection of myths, neither is it history mixed with myth. When possible historical documents are the best way to study the past, and the Bible is the best preserved ancient historical document known. In fact archeologists in Israel often use the Bible as a guide.
So Creation Science can be defined as the study of history and the physical sciences in light of the Bible. The key is not confusing scientific evidence with a particular interpretation.
At least, that’s how I understand their arguments.
They argue that both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different INTERPRETATIONS are devised to explain what happened in the past.
As much as possible, scientists try not to bring philosophy or any other preconceived notions into their work. The best scientist is a disinterested observer, who gathers data and applies logic to deduce the most likely physical mechanism causing the observed effects. That is about as removed from creation "science" as possible. Literal creationists--those who believe that the earth and all life were created almost instantaneously from nothing around 6,000 years ago try to either apply unscientific interpretations of the data or deny the data even exists.
From what I have seen literal creationists say, the attempt to pigeonhole science into "past" and "present" categories is all about trying to cast doubt--"You weren't there, you didn't see it, you're just guessing!" It's not about the science at all. Creation "science" has nothing to offer in the way of useful science, so, being unable to compete on an even playing field, they try to erode people's trust in the scientific method. They aren't alone in that effort; it's a common tactic among all those who are anti-science, and there are many anti-science efforts out there.
So, they insist that Creationists produce scientific theories but the Biblical account is used as a starting point, just as Evolutionists produce scientific theories but pure materialism without any reference to any external intelligent being are their starting point.
Creationists then insist that their resulting theories make TESTABLE predictions many of which have been successful.
Example of creationists theories with successful predictions include Dr Russell Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted planetary magnetic field observations, including the recent measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field.
Scientific investigation must deal with the physical world; there is no other option. If you want to call that "materialism", fine. The "starting point" of science is observation of the physical world and phenomena. In a scientific context, it is impossible to take a metaphorical creation story and make any real predictions from it--at least, any that pan out. I could certainly make predictions based on a belief that all life sprang up from the soil on the word of a supreme being--but it's unlikely I would find evidence of such an event upon investigation.
Likewise, a literal creationist astrophysicist might claim he developed hypotheses on planetary magnetic fields based on the biblical creation story--but I find that highly unlikely, since the Bible contains no discussion of magnetic fields, planetary composition, cosmic rays, the solar wind, or any of those other phenomena which must affect magnetic fields. Any predictions he made were based on his deep understanding of the current knowledge of planetary magnetic fields, and nothing else.
The Bible is full of metaphorical stories. It's not necessary to be a scientist to realize that both versions of its creation story are metaphorical; the clues are intrinsic to the story.