Which part of the Scientific Method does Creation Science follow?

Question

By definition, any claimed "Scientific research" not following the scientific method IS pseudoscience.

cheryllynn: Please provide an example then, oh wise one.

Answer 1

LOL, good one!
Science:
1. Gather data
2. Form hypothesis
3. Test hypothisis
4. Adjust hypothesis
5. Peer review
6. Construct theory

Creationism: Make stuff up

Answer 2

There may indeed be a tiny, tiny handful of Creationists who think that Creation science is a real science, but I imagine they are few and very far between. From the dishonest questions they ask - the same ones - over and over and over and over and over again, no matter how many times they've been disproven, debunked, and pwned, it's obvious that most of these Creationists are well aware that their "science" doesn't hold up, and they are merely spewing propaganda. All they are doing is blatant, outright lying in order to confuse those people who don't have enough science background to know they are full of poop (which thanks to the abyssmal American education system seems to include most of the US). Somehow, in their minds, lying for the cause of "greater truth" is perfectly acceptable. Makes you wonder about the so-called "morality" of their religion.

Answer 3

All scientific processes, postulates and discoveries has an intellegent designer behind them.

Or did you think SCIENCE happens by accident!

Did you think a couple of monkey put chemicals into a box, shook them up for a thousand years and created Polio Vaccine.

While it's true pennicilin grows on bread, I wouldn't eat that stuff. It's much better when an INTELLEGENCE designs it safely.

Now, how do you think the universe was created. By ACCIDENT.

It was fluke

YOU are a fluke!

Answer 4

It uses observation, experimentation and theory, the same as any other science. And they have produced a lot of support for their current model of a young universe.

Just as science as yet to be able to reconcile all the different experiments and theories on the forces gravity, magnetism, the strong force and the weak force to produce a unified theory of the universe, or just as science as not been able to reach a single model of how evolution works, or how it relates to the limitations of genetics, or just as science as yet to come to a single theory of what caused the "Big Bang", so science has yet to answer many of the valid questions that are being raised by creationist about the age and origin of the earth. Creationist also has yet to answer all of the questions being raised by the "Old Earth" scientist.

There are simple too many areas in which science has not yet advanced to the point where any of the theories of origin can be taken as "fact" or dismissed as "fake".. Or have you forget that science used to teach that the world was flat was a "fact", that all matter was made up of fire, wind, earth and water was a "fact", that humans when through all the evolutinary steps as fetus was a "fact",that people got sick from having too much blood in their bodies and it had to be bled off was a "fact", that the moon was covered by hundreds of feet of cosmic dust because of its ancient age was a "fact", and hundreds more that are now laughted at as ridiculous.

Many of theories being advanced as "fact" today will be just as ridiculous a few years from now.

Answer 5

a scientific method is this:

1) State the question
2) Form a hypothesis
3) Do experiments
4) Interpret data and draw conclusions
5) Revise theory (go back to step 2)

Creation science do the same, just in a different way.."they are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it"


so I am assuming their opinions is probably alot more educated and correct then what you think...


Okie dokie...I will...pretty simple actually...

11) State the question (Is there a Creator?)
2) Form a hypothesis (A God is the creator..)
3) Do experiments ( building a mold of the universe to determine the questions of creation science, which are :"Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
Separate ancestry for man and apes.
Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."
4) Interpret data and draw conclusions ( Using our very own scientific laws which go againist sudden creation from nothing...and the perfection of the universe, to serve as ground for us...they interpret the data and draw conclusions based on our VERY OWN SCIENTIFIC LAWS....)
5) Revise theory (go back to step 2) ( A theory of a creator...)


There you go....

Answer 6

You're having a laugh aren't you?

Creationists ask "Scientific method, what's that?"

I do believe "Creation Science" is a oxymoron. The "Creation" has nothing to do with science.

Answer 7

I'm gonna take a wild guess here that creationists will say they don't need any stinking "scientific" method.

Answer 8

The Baconian method?

Well, it starts with a hypothesis. Then it skips testing, modeling, etc and goes right to theory.

Answer 9

The "If we put the word science behind it, it's legit!" method, i.e. the Total BS Method.

Answer 10

None (not really much else I can say to this).