Talk:Creation scientist

This "syllogism" is fairly ridiculous, but since it is a true description of the topic, it should not be altered. I say ridiculous, because the Bible is a matter of Faith, not verifiable facts. Turing the hot light of scientific inquiry on the Bible would be disastrous for the Book.

Palmd001 10:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can we have some citations for the syllogism? I'd think the stated conclusion was actually a premise for many creationists. Tsumetai 10:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible is a matter of faith; creation scientists seem to disagree, seeking to prove the conclusion by science instead. Isn't that their whole raison d'etre?--AmesG 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Not so sure about that. I think the reasoning is more that since the Bible (as they interpret it) is true, good science ought to agree with it. Therefore, it ought to be possible to come up with a coherent, scientific model of, say, a young Earth. Tsumetai 10:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting possibility. You should add it to the article as an alternative perspective, like, "Alternately," or something.--AmesG 10:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name a creation scientist?--Eljoe2 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can see two problems with Creation Science - though I won't be the first to mention this. The first is that science must be objective to be called science. If your objective is to prove a idea which you already hold then, strictly speaking, it can't be science. The second problem is that one of the axioms of the scientific method is: "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof". As self-identified "Creation Scientists" I assume that they are unable to suggest circumstances which would cause them to change their ideas - and consequently can't be scientists.--British_cons (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)