Creation Muesum

[RoadRunner79]

I think that we are getting off topic here.  I at least am not claiming scientific knowledge for "every single core Christian claim" nor that the Bible is a science book.  What I was discussing, was a priori generalization, that anything viewed to be Christian science, is antithetical to "real science"  That is scientific claims that support a Christian worldview are automatically viewed as pseudo-science by definition (based on the result rather than the method.)  

As I said, the demarcation of science is a tough philosophical nut to crack.  And I don't know that I am qualified to draw that line.  However; for me personally my view leans towards method, and the basis of the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

So, you disagree with me in your first paragraph, and then agree with me in your second: the basis for the conclusion one draws is the most important part of determining whether that conclusion is properly scientific, and this is precisely the reason why christian science is not science, because it skips out on a huge base element of a rationally drawn conclusion.

No, I think we agree... what makes it science or not, is the method, and reasons for the conclusion.  What is the foundation for the claim (not to be confused with motivation for the study).  All I am saying, is that one cannot automatically categorize the claim as pseudo science based on where the conclusion results.  

As well, I don't believe that the categorization as science is dependent on a true or correct conclusion.  Opposing views where at least one view must be false, can still be both labeled as scientific study.

---

It is a generalization based on evidence. That I provided above. "Reputable" Christian sources all use the statement of faith.

If interested you may want to check out Reasons to Believe.  I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).  Both look to science for explanation quite a bit.  I don't really use AIG, and agree with you in that case quite a bit, although I would not categorically label everything there as pseudo science.

If you could, provide a "naturalist" source, claiming to be performing science, that states that if they discover evidence that contradicts their claim, they will disregard it. I'll wait...

How about statements here, that claim science is the only source for truth, even though that very claim contradicts itself.

No. You are not doing science in a lecture hall. If you do testable, repeatable experiments in the lab that produce results that corroborate your hypothesis, you are but a fly in the wall of the mountains of other experiments that have done the same results.

I think you are misunderstanding.  This was in response, that if one starts with a conclusion, and proceeds to provide scientific verification for that conclusion, that it is not science.

Please, if you would, link to a creationist experiment. What have the creationists tested that provides a prediction of future phenomena, as a scientific theory would? I'll wait...

This would seem to preclude historical sciences by definition.  Which scientific claims of a creation nature would be considered (at least to my understanding).  

And now you're mincing words. One does not need to witness a gene mutating in order to witness the evidence that it leaves. I don't need to be there to see a Mt. Vesuvius erupting, but by dating the igneous strata and exhuming the mummified remains of the Pompeians, we can tell a story. Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

I was just clarifying when you said "Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion" that you did not mean that making inferences based on the evidence was out of bounds for your scientific classification.