Creation Muesum

[SteelCurtain]

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.

Same shit, different salad. Starting out with an unassailable conclusion. This, by definition, right of the bat, cannot be science:

Scripture
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation
We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature - its physical, biological, and social aspects - can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other. (bold mine)
http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

The request is still hanging, roadrunner. You have yet to provide a scientific claim that creationists have proffered which has advanced the scientific realm in any manner. One claim that provides an explanation which can be tested, which can be recreated, which is falsifiable, which can be used to predict future phenomena. You know, the basic hallmarks of scientific theory.

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.

Who here is performing a scientific experiment? Read the request again. I am not talking about members of an atheist forum debating you. I am talking about a scientific community that a priori rejects any evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis. Please, find a mission statement like the one above on a scientific journal or academic body. I am patient.

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.

When you are in a classroom, you are being taught something. Those experiments aren't to prove evolution. They are to explicate the lesson. In your example, a maths professor would have to derive the quadratic formula every time he wanted to calculate roots. Once a concept has been demonstrated, then it need not be proven every time it is taught.

You see, the only people who won't accept that the quadratic formula has been proven or that 2+2 = 4 is the Christian "scientists." Evolution is literally the most demonstrated, tested, supported, robust theory that mankind has ever conceived. There is absolutely no question that it happens. What we are continuing to discover is the methods by which it happens, which are amazingly complex and interwoven.

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).

We are talking about biology here. I was under the impression that this was a "Creation as an alternate explanation for evolution" discussion. If creation is an alternate explanation for evolution, then it ought to have the same (or since it's Jeebus, better) explanatory power, no? So, if these creation "scientists" are doing science, lets see a peer reviewed paper or scholarly article that explains an observed phenomena and can be used to predict future phenomena. They should be studying God's little gift of cancer, say, and looking to the Bible to tell them how to cure it, or even simpler, what to expect when they pray about it. (Hint: not a damn thing)

There should be tons of these papers. Right?

Wrong. You know why? Because creationists don't answer questions. They manipulate the data, outright ignore contradictory evidence (by design,) and attempt to undermine real science. You cannot even imagine the fields of science that would be completely wiped out if evolution wasn't a fact. All of the things we've learned about human biology, embryology, immunology, etc, etc, etc---are based from the foundation of evolutionary science. It is so thoroughly supported by the evidence that it is moronic that we even have to have this conversation.

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.

No, making inferences based on the evidence is what scientists do. Making conclusions before you even look at the evidence is not what scientists do.