Is Creation Science, scientific?

Wikipedia's article on Creation Science has several "scientific criticisms of Creation Science". While the general tone of the article is negative this attack is particularly nasty. It also shows a lack of an accurate understanding of Creation Science. It is claimed that for an hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it needs to meet at least most of the state qualifications, and ideally all them. Any hypothesis or conjecture that meets two or less of the qualifications is said to be totally unscientific.

Scientific Qualification

Objection

Response

Consistent (internally and externally) No objection No response needed

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) Creationism violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events. This is a little vague. There is no hint of what events are being referred to, so by implication they must mean every event. Claiming that supernatural entities are not needed to explain any events is rather subjective, for example there are numerous events in the Bible that can not be explained apart from supernatural entities, unless you deny the events happened as described in the Bible or that the events happened at all. Also adding God to equation in many cases reduces the number explanations need to explain an event, so Creation Science dose meet the the principle of parsimony.

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) No objection No response needed

Empirically testable and falsifiable Creationism is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about his existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments.

Creationism is not empirically testable : Creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism, so is not empirically testable.
While Creation Science is theistic, it is not the same as Theism. This is like claiming that Evolution is not falsifiable because atheism is not falsifiable. Creation Science dose not just say that God created every thing, but it deals with specific processes, events and time scales, that do set sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. Furthermore Creation Science produces individual theories that can be can and in some cases have been falsified.

This presupposes that only naturalistic theories are empirically testable. Supernatural theories can be tested by repeated observation when the event is repeated. A supernatural event that interacts with the mater in our universe would would leave affects that would a low a supernatural theory about the event to be tested. Furthermore, not all Creation Science theories are supernatural, but rather they deal strictly with physical properties in the natural world. Thus Creation Science is empirically testable.

Based upon controlled, repeatable experiments Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomenon that it tries to explain. The same can be said for Evolution, since both theories try to explain the same basic the phenomenon, that being the origin and history of the Universe, Earth, and Mankind. The problem is that both deal with the past and it is impossible to put the past into controlled, repeatable experiments. Furthermore much of phenomenon science deals with can not be subjected to controlled, repeatable experiments since they simply can not fit into lab, in such cases observations of the phenomenon in nature fills in for experimentation, this is the case for much of Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, and Geology. That said, Creation Scientists base their theories on experimentation and observation as possible, as is illustrated by RATE's work on radiometric dating.

Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) * Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that "the Truth" has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is both correctable and dynamic, Creation Scientists have made numerous theoretical corrections over the years as new data has discovered, for example Flood models ways of dealing with the distant starlight problem, radiohalos and radiometric dating. have changed significantly over the years. In each case these changes have resulted from new data.

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) See Above.* While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is progressive, a good example come from planetary magnetic fields, where Dr. Russell Humphreys built on the work of Dr. Thomas Barnes. Many other examples exist as well.

Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) See Above.* While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is tentative and Creationists readily admit that fact, and do so far more frequently that Evolutionists do.

So contrary to the claims of it opponents, Creation Science meets all of the qualifications of being science and Creation Scientists do use the Scientific Method.

Wikipedia's article on Creation Science is also claims that a global flood is impossible using a typical straw man argument, that claims that the Flood needed to cover Mt. Everest at its current hight, but this claim is easily refuted.

Scientific Qualification	Objection	Response
Consistent (internally and externally)	No objection	No response needed
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)	Creationism violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.	This is a little vague. There is no hint of what events are being referred to, so by implication they must mean every event. Claiming that supernatural entities are not needed to explain any events is rather subjective, for example there are numerous events in the Bible that can not be explained apart from supernatural entities, unless you deny the events happened as described in the Bible or that the events happened at all. Also adding God to equation in many cases reduces the number explanations need to explain an event, so Creation Science dose meet the the principle of parsimony.
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)	No objection	No response needed
Empirically testable and falsifiable	Creationism is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about his existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. Creationism is not empirically testable : Creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism, so is not empirically testable.	While Creation Science is theistic, it is not the same as Theism. This is like claiming that Evolution is not falsifiable because atheism is not falsifiable. Creation Science dose not just say that God created every thing, but it deals with specific processes, events and time scales, that do set sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. Furthermore Creation Science produces individual theories that can be can and in some cases have been falsified. This presupposes that only naturalistic theories are empirically testable. Supernatural theories can be tested by repeated observation when the event is repeated. A supernatural event that interacts with the mater in our universe would would leave affects that would a low a supernatural theory about the event to be tested. Furthermore, not all Creation Science theories are supernatural, but rather they deal strictly with physical properties in the natural world. Thus Creation Science is empirically testable.
Based upon controlled, repeatable experiments	Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomenon that it tries to explain.	The same can be said for Evolution, since both theories try to explain the same basic the phenomenon, that being the origin and history of the Universe, Earth, and Mankind. The problem is that both deal with the past and it is impossible to put the past into controlled, repeatable experiments. Furthermore much of phenomenon science deals with can not be subjected to controlled, repeatable experiments since they simply can not fit into lab, in such cases observations of the phenomenon in nature fills in for experimentation, this is the case for much of Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, and Geology. That said, Creation Scientists base their theories on experimentation and observation as possible, as is illustrated by RATE's work on radiometric dating.
Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)	* Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that "the Truth" has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.	While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is both correctable and dynamic, Creation Scientists have made numerous theoretical corrections over the years as new data has discovered, for example Flood models ways of dealing with the distant starlight problem, radiohalos and radiometric dating. have changed significantly over the years. In each case these changes have resulted from new data.
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)	See Above.*	While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is progressive, a good example come from planetary magnetic fields, where Dr. Russell Humphreys built on the work of Dr. Thomas Barnes. Many other examples exist as well.
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)	See Above.*	While Creation Science uses the Bible as its staring point the actual scientific work is tentative and Creationists readily admit that fact, and do so far more frequently that Evolutionists do.