They are scientific theories (whether you may want to argue on the merits is another topic; your personal preference, I would argue only on the merits, but then again it difficult to do rather than spew out adhominim fallacies..).
I would respect you more, if you were honest and just admit that you don’t believe that creation science holds up under the weight of emirical evidence (though I would argue othewise..), rather than relying on the trite and frankly old darwinist idea that creation “science” isn’t really scientificly based..
(Some of the origins of this theory are religious-supernatural in nature- yet we aren’t testing religion (God): we are testing empirical (or rather forensic) scientifically empirical evidence for/against both macro-evolution and creation theory and intelligent design theory)..So will you argue your point rather than trite adhominim attacks..! ????
They are not scientific theories under the definitions used in science. Here is a definition of "theory" from a NASA website:
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
The goal of creation "science" was never research and discovery. Its goal was proselytizing, a way to get religion back into the classrooms.
I would respect you more, if you were honest and just admit that you don’t believe that creation science holds up under the weight of emirical evidence (though I would argue othewise..), rather than relying on the trite and frankly old darwinist idea that creation “science” isn’t really scientificly based..
Creation "science" has been determined to be religion by the U.S. Supreme Court (the Edwards decision).
(Some of the origins of this theory are religious-supernatural in nature- yet we aren’t testing religion (God): we are testing empirical (or rather forensic) scientifically empirical evidence for/against both macro-evolution and creation theory and intelligent design theory)..
Again, no. Both creation "science" and ID have been determined to be religion by the courts. The whole scheme for the modern version of ID, cooked up following the Edwards decision of the late 1980s is outlined in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy.
So will you argue your point rather than trite adhominim attacks..! ????
If you look back on the post you are responding to you will find I made no personal attacks. There are none in this post either.
If there have been any personal attacks, they have been by you. For example, just above you questioned my honesty.