However, here's how I understand it. It's not about using a different, ''creationist'', scientific method, as you are saying. It is more about a different set of assumptions behind what could be called ''secular science'' and ''creation science''.
So, would it be fair, in the spirit of this thread, to have two competeing ideas with a different set of beginning assumptions?
My thoughts being:
Secular - If there was a world wide flood, what evidence would be left behind?
Creation - If God made the world flood, what evidence would be left behind?
Is that fair? Why, if the science is the same but the assumptions differ, would we get any different answer?
''creation science'' will assume something different, God exists and has in fact acted in the creation of this universe.
That is the question though. With a world wide flood, how would the evidence differ? With the creation of the universe what evidence would we expect to find and how does this differ if your not assuming a god from the onset?
™ Version 4.2
