(September 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Creationism is science; it’s a methodology used to understand the natural Universe. I apologize for the confusion.
Keep apologizing then because you are way off the mark yet again. If I understand you correctly (though no one here can ever assume that) what you're saying is:
Creationism=science
And
Science=methodology used to understand the natural universe
Then
Creationism=methodology used to understand the natural universe
You are equivocating terms that cannot be equal. Creationism is anything but natural, but nice try attempting to mask its actual premise, that is, creation.
SW Wrote:You act as if we use science to test all existential and truth claims, I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Science presupposes that numerous claims are true a priori. To assert that somehow creationists are not allowed to do what every other scientist is allowed to do is fallacious special pleading. You do not like creationists, I get it; that has no bearing on whether or not creationism is science though.
So your presupposition of a creator has a firm foundation? It's based on observable facts that would lead you to think that this universe was created? Or is it just that you want your fictional 2000 year old book to be true?
There is a method to science, and presupposing is not part of it. It asks questions about things it doesn't know or things it may want to know more about, but it never states from the beginning that such an idea is already factual.
But, if you want to put up creationism as your hypothesis, go right ahead. See how far that gets you in the Scientific Method. Publish your works. Let us know when you win the Nobel Prize for proving that a creator god exists.
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)