I think we should just agree to disagree.
I have been saying that some creationism can be science, if it follows the rules of science.
If it followed the rules of science, wouldn't it just be science?
Which unfortunately it mostly hasn't, but is very able to do.
When it does, it finds out it's wrong.
Also I don't understand how making a theory"everything was created" and then seeing if evidence supports it classifies it as not science.
Is that how you're defining "creationism?" Because that's not what you said. You said "not evolution." Which is anti-science, because science, using the scientific method, has learned that evolution is correct.
Doesn't alot of science come up with theories based on observations, and then they find if experiments support it.
It comes up with hypotheses, which generates predictions, which either support the hypothesis or not. A theory is a scientific explanation of a lot of phenomena that holds together and makes sense of all the predictions and observations. To the extent that creationism is a hypothesis, and makes predictions, those predictions have been falsified.
If a Creationist has a theory that "the world is created", from a question through observation, say intelligent design, and then goes through a process of finding evidence and experiments that support it. Isn't it then an act of science?
Do you mean the same thing by "Intelligent Design" as you do by "creationism?" Do you know what "Intelligent Design" means?
Isn't this following the scientific method?
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Yes, kind of. A crucial part that you left out is that you predict the outcome of your experiment, and if it doesn't come true, you have to revise your hypothesis. To the extent that creationism has done this, its predictions have not come true.
- Was the world created?
- Intelligent design, support of historical accounts
- An intelligent force influenced the building of atomic structures into a planned order.
- Test whether certain forces can act intelligently and influence atomic structures. Test mathematically if this is possible.
- The forces have not been found to act intelligently or guided
- The experiment does not support the hypothesis
Wouldn't that be science if Creationism conducted itself as that?
If the world were created by a super-intelligence, what predictions can you generate from that hypothesis? Bear in mind, the super-intelligence is both unknowable and all-powerful. Now make a specific, falsifiable prediction. See the problem?
So it's completely possible for it to be science.
I think you'll find that it isn't.
Now I need to show whether its has conducted itself like this before.
No, it hasn't. No predictions, no experiments, no falsifiable predictions.
And I'll do research on it.
Good idea.
What I mean when I say Creation Science, is the general scientific work within the creation field and scientific work on Creation theory.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Here: cite a single work of scientific research, a single study by any scientist in any field, by a "creation scientist", published in any reputable peer reviwed scientific journal. Just one.