| interesting...
i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed.
one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims.
-b |