Changes

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

Creation science is not considered [[science]] by [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|close-minded]] [[atheism|atheistic]] [[liberal]] scientists who reject the proven truth diligently arrived at through [[faith]] and [[logic]]. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref>  <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>

Creation science is considered as pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref>  <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>

Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>

Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>

* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>  Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>  Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> However prominent evolutionist JBS Haldane, when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, said "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

{{Creation vs. evolution}}