Creationism as science? (evolution)

[Ozzie]

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

are we talking about creationism taught in the science lab? or the RS class room?

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

Certainly. Unfortunately, by doing that, most creationists are ill-equipped training wise, and they are most likely apprehensive about adopting an attitude that can falsify.

[astarath]

I would say a large portion of creationist support creationism as a science on the basis that it is a valid concept of creation that can not be disproven and thus holds equal merit to evolution. If this is the reasoning behind it the sole basis lies on the ability to prove validity or falacy in the concept. However, I would add that scientists' theories often when disproved merely become altered to suit new facts and information rather than accepting the theory was wrong. If one day evolution were disproven I am sure very quickly the theory would altered to show that the concept of evolution never disagreed with creation but rather complimented it.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by astarath

If one day evolution were disproven I am sure very quickly the theory would altered to show that the concept of evolution never disagreed with creation but rather complimented it.

This is slightly off topic, but, no, science would absolutely not say that.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

Absolutely.

As a goodwill gesture, the evangelicals would have to deliver Paige Patterson, Jim Robertson, and Jerry Falwell to be hung by their toes and publically tarred and feathered.

[astarath]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

This is slightly off topic, but, no, science would absolutely not say that.

So you are telling me that science does not merely "evolve" itself whenever new information comes to light to disprove old? Not claiming wrong but rather claiming a lack of knowledge and the new and improved theory as accuracy.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by astarath

However, I would add that scientists' theories often when disproved merely become altered to suit new facts and information rather than accepting the theory was wrong. If one day evolution were disproven I am sure very quickly the theory would altered to show that the concept of evolution never disagreed with creation but rather complimented it.

I believe you are incorrect. Scientific theories are not altered to suit new facts. A completely new theory has to be developed.

This is the problem - creationists who may want to bring science into the equation do not even know enough rudimentary scientific principles to put together a compelling argument.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by astarath

So you are telling me that science does not merely "evolve" itself whenever new information comes to light to disprove old? Not claiming wrong but rather claiming a lack of knowledge and the new and improved theory as accuracy.

When scientific theories are disproved, they become invalid. Could new theories be developed that take this new information into account? Yes. And that is exactly what should happen. To do otherwise would be ignoring facts. This is in direct opposition to creationism which holds steadfast to original claims, and would still do so when new light comes to pass.