Creation Muesum

[Jenny A]

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.

Any system of belief based on beliefs held without evidence or worse despite the evidence to the contrary is the antithesis of science.  Not only religion, but much political and philosophical ideology is also the antithesis of science.  It is possible to be religious and do science, but you have to be willing to either throw out religious and ideological beliefs where they conflict with dogma or avoid turning a scientific eye on areas of dogma. Creation science is an attempt to pretend that various fundamentalist beliefs are evidentially based.  They aren't.

 It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).

Certainly there have been, are, will be, conflicting scientific theories.  The difference is how the evidence is treated. Additional evidence will always support or conflict with each hypothesis.  Begin throwing out all evidence to the contrary and you are ceasing to do science. The creationists have a single hypothesis for which they only collect data (if quote mining can be called data) and ignore all evidence to the contrary of the predetermined facts.  It has nothing to do with science.

 Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

If creationists actually did that, why they'd be doing science.  Instead they quote mine and cite the Bible as evidence for things obviously outside it's competence such as the age of the earth. It is not a different interpretation of the evidence, but rather a stubborn refusal to consider the evidence.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

If is not the result of weighing and analyzing evidence objectively, I be interested what any other method would reveal about the reality. Emotional truths, might be reached differently, but that is really a matter of knowing oneself.  It is not revealing about objective reality beyond one state of emotional being.