Why do some people think that creationism is a science?

Question

How on earth does creationism follow the scientific method?

Answer 1

Beats me. They can't offer any way to test it. All scientific testing proves that evolution existed, that the Earth is about 5 billion years old, and life started about 1 billion years ago. Any method you could test, such as carbon dating, DNA analysis, anthropological comparison etc etc etc, will tell you that evolution occurred, not creation.
Creationism is a belief system, and should correctly be taught in religion studies. It should certainly not be compulsory to be taught it in science. Any students who have to sit in these classes, could rightly ask for scientific evidence, as they could with evolution.

Answer 2

Actually neither creationism nor evolution follow the scientific method. They are both religions that must be taken on faith. There are actual "facts", but both sides can use those facts to support their argument.
Example:

FACT #1: There are fossils.
Interpretation #1: They got there by being laid down over millions of years.

Interpretation #2: They got there by being laid down suddenly by a worldwide Flood.

FACT #2: The Grand Canyon exists.
Interpretation #1: It got that way over millions of years with a little bit of water from a small, meandering river.

Interpretation #2: It got that way over a period of hours or days with an enormous amount of water through the breach of a natural dam, the Kaibab Uplift.

FACT #3: There is variation within species.
Interpretation #1: This means that they have always been changing and that they can produce a different family of animal.

Interpretation #2: This is consistent with the Biblical claim that animals only bring forth after their kind.

As you can see, evolution also does not follow the scientific method. The Scientific Method is only for observable data, and evolution is not observable or repeatable. Here is an example:

Here is a students' challenge - Demonstrate, using the scientific method only, how a dog can produce or come from a non-dog. ("Dog" here is defined as any member of the family "Canis".) Your results must be observable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Can't do it? Then it's a religion. It is an observable fact that there are over 250 varieties of domestic dog. Creationists don't deny that. That is a scientific statement. But to believe that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor is unscientific and religious. It is completely unprovable and outside of the realm of science.

Answer 3

It isnt that creationism is a science itself but science can be used to test it. Like some of the same methods can be used to test how old something is but the time frame isnt billions of years. For instance, it would take X billion years for the Colorado river to crarve such a deep canyon, but scientifuc research hardly ever accounts for such things as natural distaster. If the ground opened and water sprung from it like the Bible says, it wouldnt take billions of years for it to appear. Could this have created the Grand Canyon? To reasearch that possibility is Creation Science. Is there any evidence to show that there may very well have been an event like an earthquake that could have cause this 6 thousand years ago? I dont know, but thats what creation science does.

Answer 4

They know better than that. They make those claims in the hopes that it will somehow make creation more 'acceptable' to those that think they're full of crap. The problem is, it only makes them look worse.

Answer 5

No facts; no figures; no lab notes; no peer-reviewed articles; no testable hypotheses; no way to falsify its assertions; no clue as to how real science works. That's creationism.

But public schools in North America have failed dismally to expose students to real science, so they're incapable of recognizing pseudo-science when they see it. If they'll fall for alien abductions, they'll fall for anything.

Answer 6

well, think of it this way. earth is perfect for life, a life capable planet doesn't just happen. something created it to support life.

Answer 7

some states by law have to teach in it science class

Answer 8

I don't know but this nuclear physicists who teaches at MIT is sort of into it. And he sort of got Antony Flew, the most famous philosopher of atheism of the 20th century, into it.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

Answer 9

Science is a religion, just like creationism.

Answer 10

HAHAAH people consider it science
HAHA thats so funny...I never knew that...WOW! That is very funny...sorry I can't answer this question...haha ahhhhh
funny stuff