Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science.
One really can’t claim that evolution theory is “bad” science, since it is not science at all.
“Without doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism cannot lay claim to any associations with science.”
Empirical research using the scientific method has yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. What you're really saying is that; by doing empirical research using the scientific method, creationism CAN lay claim to an association with science. Did I get that right? I thought for a minute there we were in disagreement.
No I guess you're really saying it is impossible to use empirical research using scientific method to prove creation theory.
My friend, using the worst case scenario we are on equal footing because the same is true of the religion of evolution.
Why should the state inflict one version of here-say over another?
So you would also discount much of theoretical physics as “non-scientific” and unrelated to science? It is pretty hard to do empirical research on the origins of the universe, those conditions don’t exist at this time. All those dolts like Einstein have done is just extrapolation...
One of the first things you would learn if you studied the scientific method is that there are empirical (observations) and theoretical (often mathematical) approaches.
I don’t have problems with the scientific method, I have problems with people making bad assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
If it weren’t for Christianity, you would not have colleges and universities. They were the ones that funded education and most of the great scientific minds believed in God and actually said because the universe was so orderly it confirmed for them there was a God.