Firstly Buz’s perseverance in the face of adversity is to be commended. I fundamentally disagree with almost his entire viewpoint but I think he has put his point across in good faith. It was pity that more creationists were not able to take up the baton and help his cause.
I personally would argue that creationist science is in fact impossible.
Not because, as Buz suggests in his last post, I believe that any conclusion that is compatible with biblical creation is inherently unscientific. This conclusion is as potentially valid as any other as long as it is made scientifically
Nor because the definition of science actively precludes anything that contradicts or provides alternatives to established scientific theories.
There is a fine history within science of established theories being refuted, discredited and eventually overturned by better ones. This is how science progresses.
The reason I think creationist science is fundamentally impossible is because it reverses the very foundations of why we undertake scientific investigation in the first place. Any faith based position is by definition not looking for answers. It is looking for verification. Without the spirit of discovery and the desire to accurately investigate the unknown the driving force that lies behind the methods of science are missing.
Science holds physical evidence supreme in an effort to enforce an objectivity that will result in truthful findings that tell us about reality without reference to the beliefs or prejudices of the investigator.
Science holds detailed prediction in higher esteem than any other form of verification exactly because it is so difficult to achieve and it is therefore the best indication of the truth of a theory that we have.
I do not claim that every conventional scientist achieves these ideals or is even consciously aware of them when undertaking their research. However I do think any true scientist would accept them as ideals.
Creationists already believe they have the answers to the great questions. They are not undertaking research ultimately to discover new truths in the widest sense. Because of this they do not have idealised reasons for conducting research in a manner that is most conducive to ensuring that their theories are the closest objective approximation to the truth achievable.
Nor are they as stringent in ensuring that their methodologies impose all the checks and balances on a given theory that this approach necessitates.
This I would argue is why creationist research can be so lackadaisical regards it’s methods and foundation in physical evidence.
This is why refutable predictions are so notably absent from almost all creationist conclusions.
No matter that creationists present their research in a manner that resembles scientific data gathering. No matter that the claims being made on barely hidden assumed biblical truths are called hypotheses. This is just dressing a faith based claim in the clothes of science in attempt to give it the same authority science has achieved as a result of it's success.
Ultimately if the investigation in question does not set out to unlock unknown mysteries about reality and impose measures to ensure that the best possible objective answer is achieved, it is just not science.
Creationist research, and any other faith based research for that matter, is not and cannot be, scientific in any area that conflicts with it’s faith based beliefs and the way in which these interact with the physical world.
Creationist research is not seeking to investigate the unknown or to provide innovative and creative yet truthful answers to the seemingly unknowable. For that reason above all other it is not science.
I believe the examples here have demonstrated that.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2