Hi Buzsaw:
As Holmes has already pointed out to you, the "definition" we use is not new. No one here has redefined science to exclude creationism or Intelligent Design. Nope, we don't need to because both of these ideas fail to meet the requirements of being scientific solely based on their own methodology.
Look, here are three statements from the latest paper you claimed as an example of creationists conducting valid scientific research (which I found at the following link:
ICR | The Institute for Creation Research)
Creationist Research Paper writes:
1. Second, we believe that the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic -- most probably basaltic. Once again three reasons exist for this inference: 1) Pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood; 2) If, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and 3) If, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our flood model...
2. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction...
3. Post-Flood Geology
After the global effects of the Flood ended, the earth continued to experience several hundred years of residual catastrophism [7]. A cooling lithosphere is likely to have produced a pattern of decreasing incidence [68] and intensity of volcanism (such as appears to be evidenced in Cenozoic sialic volcanism in the Western United States [77]). The large changes in crustal thicknesses produced during the Flood left the earth in isostatic disequilibrium. lsostatic readjustments with their associated intense mountain uplift, earthquake, and volcanic activity would have occurred for hundreds of years after the global affects of the Flood ended (e.g. [83]). In fact, considering the current nature of the mantle, there has not been sufficient time since the end of the Flood for complete isostatic equilibrium to be attained. As a result, current geologic activity can be seen as continued isostatic readjustments to Flood events. Modern earthquake and volcanic activity is in some sense relict Flood dynamics...
Where are the scientific tests of even just these three statements? Do you see now what it is we have been trying to say?
The papers you presented as valid scientific research present no actual science. They simple say "why" they feel certain things are the way they are or how certain events may have unfolded, but they conduct no experiments to see if those wants and desires have any support.
Here again are the steps needed to conduct valid scientific research.
You need to make some sort of observation of a natural event.
You ask questions about that event.
You formulate a testable hypothesis or testable hypotheses.
You design and conduct experiments to address both your test hypothesis {es} and your null hypothesis {es}.
You analyze the results and then either accept or reject you test hypothesis.
You present your findings and conclusions to your peers for review.
Many things can happen from here, but basically...
Jack's a doughnut, there you go.
Creationism and ID essentially fall apart as scientific endeavors at the "Hypothesis Formation" stage. They either formulate non-testable hypotheses or they formulate hypotheses but conduct no tests to see if they can be supported. If I wrong here, show me where. Show me either a testable creationist hypothesis or an experiment conducted on a creationist’s hypothesis.
™ Version 4.2