Creation Muesum

[RoadRunner79]

I suppose what I have been trying to get to; and will just come out and ask is what is your definition of science?   What are the minimum requirements that are needed to be in your view science?  I would like to nail down the goal posts, before we proceed.

TRS got it, but in a nutshell:

Start with a hypothesis that must be both plausible and falsifiable, devise an experiment that will adequately test said hypothesis, collect data.

Publish your findings to your peers. The experiments will then be reproduced, or better yet experiments using an alternate method will be run, in order to reproduce the data and findings. A self-correction process happens when these two diverge.

So---about the question that I've been asking for 21 pages now, let's see some of this creationist science. With the prolific people that you mentioned last page, you should have papers abound that demonstrate that creationists do science all the time, right?

Thank you for the definition.  According to what you and TRS have given here, I would agree, that creationism and intelligent design do not qualify as science.  From what I gather from the two posts, there is a focus on a model, which can be tested and verified or falsified.  In Creationism and Intelligent design, I would describe them as presenting evidence, and making an inference from the evidence. The evidence is gathered using scientific principles and may be falsified.  But it does not falsify a model, which can be repeated.  In my opinion, this is a fairly restrictive definition, and would restrict many of the investigative sciences.  For instance, I do not think that common descent evolution would meet these requirements as I have understood them.   I would even question if evolutionary change and variation of species which is almost universally accepted, could meet the specificity which I believe is implied here. 

So far, while I believe the definition is restrictive, I don't necessarily disagree with it.  It was recently said here, that many in the forum work in science, and according to this definition given, I believe this would be an overstatement.   Both of you mentioned peer review publication as a qualification or quality of science.  On this point, I would disagree.  I believe there was science before the peer review process.   Also, I see peer review and acceptance  as an acknowledgement or test, of science not a qualification.  The test or vindication of the qualities of science, cannot itself be a requirement.  The peer review process is also subject to politics and bias, which I do not believe negates something as science (there is a subjective nature to it).    There is at least one study, which won a Nobel prize in science, which was rejected by peer review.  As well, a number of Nobel prize winners who denounce the peer review process.  I understand the benefit of peer review publications, to provide a collection of science which should be able to be cited and used by others.  However the system does have issues, and its reliability has been questioned.

Creationism does provide scientific information and draws a conclusion from them.  Some are better than others, and some do ignore data (which at this point, I think you are leaving science, and merely using science.  The Reasons to Believe ministries is in the process of creating a Biblical Creation Model, which they claim will meet the criteria such that you have cited previously.  They believe that the information from scripture can be used to create a scientific model, that is both testable, and makes predictions.    This is as opposed to the intelligent design community which sticks strictly to what can be claimed from scientific research, and believes that the evidence is best explained by an intelligent cause/agent.  Many of the claims are specific and falsifiable, The criticism is that they do not have a specific model explaining how.  Peer reviewed papers have been published by the intelligent design community (which I'm sure that you are aware of), but in my opinion they are not that strong, towards the overall case.  And I would agree, that this is because of the lack of a specific model and it is more of an inference based on evidence.