If Creation science is science, then it is not 100% accurate and can also have errors since science is fallible, right?
And if Creation science is based in the Bible, then that means the Bible has errors. Correct?
But I'm talking about Creation Science here. So, is Creation Science a science or not a science? BTW, the picture is nice ***, but it doesn't answer my question.
Still no answer?
In the AiG article Can Creationists Be Scientists? by Dr. Jason Lisle, he never gave a direct answer to the question if Creation Science is a Science. All he did was to criticize evolution (again) yet he never gave a good answer if one should treat Creation science as a legitimate science. That is why I'm asking the question.
Again, in the AiG article Real Scientists, Really? by Dr. Terry Mortenson on July 27, 2005 still there is no quote if Creation Science is legitimate science or not. It's again more on evolution bashing, yet it is empty on the issue concerning the legitimacy of Creation science as a legitimate science.
We can all see here that AiG acknowledge the word "Creation Science" yet every time I look for articles in that topic, well there is zero explanations what makes Creation science as "science." All I have been reading here so far are nothing but evolution bashing.
Moreover, if Creation Science is not connected anyway to any religious agenda, why this? When did science become religious?
Just wondering.
I have heard (and read) all those evolution bashing, common sense, a list of a bunch of "scientists" who's into Creation Science, I have even read credentials, how smart Creationists are, Yaddah! Yaddah! However, it seems when we talk about Creation Science as a legitimate science, I always see empty walls and tied-up tongues.
No comments:
Post a Comment