“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”
Dr Walt Brown PhD [from the 2nd link in post 65] does provide plenty of information both on explaining observations and making predictions [see part II of creationscience.com]. In part I he simply lays out point by point what we do know w/ near certainty about evolution [hint: micro yes, macro no not enough time even w/ billions of years].
On your 1st point please remember the scientific method requires repeatability therefore neither creation nor evolution fall into the classical definition of true science. I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]
Dr. Brown was basically looking at any/all evidence in support of the biblical account. Walt stated how many problems he found w/ integrity and outright fraud while formerly working as an evolutionary scientist. He then began an exhaustive re-examination of the Genesis story he was taught during his Methodist upbringing.
One of my favorite quotes he documents from Darwin himself was the need for [paraphrased] thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils or the TOE completely falls apart.
Dr. Brown includes lots of references both for and against evolution and paints the clearest picture yet. He was also greatly inspired by Whitcomb and Morris book “The Genesis Flood” iirc.
Also the hydroplate theory is the only plausible theory I know of that explains where all the water came from and went to regarding a global flood.
The theory of evolution is just another way for man to describe what’s been hidded he can’t figure out. God hides his ways from the wicked who are then left with their tainted and feeble minds to construct whatever their minds can conceive....regardless if facts can prove or not.
” I don’t recall any stated formal creation theory per se, but Dr. Brown does explain his hydroplate theory [replaces plate tectonics]”
Without a concisely stated theory you don’t have anything since how could you possibly test it. Simply criticizing another theory makes you a skeptic, not a proponent of another theory. If the creationists’ “theory” is what’s in Genesis then they should clearly state so. Then we could test it against reality, such as, was all of the universe really created in seven days 4000 some odd years ago? Was Noah really able to fit a pair of each species in the Ark? Were all the species that ever existed created then? And son on.
I don’t have any problem with someone critiquing a theory and pointing out its shortcomings. That’s all part of good science and how a theory is improved, and even discarded. Science is filled with such cases.
But I have tremendous problems with people who start with a dogmatic belief which they will not alter regardless of what contrary evidence is presented, and insist on calling it a scientific theory simply to insert themselves in the classroom in order to neutralize a legitimate theory that conflicts with their dogma. I find such behavior disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest, and very reprehensible, not to mention un-Christian.
Now, the evolutionary theory may very well be incomplete or possibly wrong. I myself have a hard time believing some of it’s aspects, while in many cases it seems to make a lot of sense. But simply because it may be lacking doesn’t make somebody’s dogma right.