I know, I know - 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron; or is it? I feel like I've been left out of the loop a bit because I just discovered that there really is such a thing as 'creation science'. I expect a lot of flack for even suggesting such a thing but I should point out that emotional reactions to any suggestion of validity to 'creation science' are really on par with the dogmatic rebuttals of theists.
Like all scientists, creation scientists start out with an hypothesis and then go out and test it. I guess the only difference is that they don't really have hypothesis 'b' (or c,d,e,f...) waiting in the wings like reality scientists. Where reality science can drop an hypothesis and move on, creation science needs to get more rigorous, to say the least.
It seems that creation scientists use classical mutlidimensional scaling to group fossils into baramins - a creationist version of evolutionary taxonomy. The multidimensional scaling identifies gaps in the fossil record that leave the remaining fossils in 'groups' they call baramins, which they say were created in exactly that form by a god. Interestingly, this is the most technical definition of a 'god of the gaps' I've ever encountered.
So, the topic to discuss here is; 'IF' creation scientists could actually prove their baramin hypothesis AND reality scientists couldn't falsify it, would you be prepared to accept/admit that macro-evolution did NOT actually occur?
My views aren't wrong - just in continual need of updating. I think you are exactly correct with the epicycles analogy, although with all motion being relative, whose to say it's impossible? ha ha
I was just surprised to find that there were creationists who were actually engaging the fossil record rather than ignoring it.
Well I looked around at what these guys are doing and was surprised to find they were doing anything at all. In Atheist circles the concept of 'creation science' seems to be akin to a bunch of philosophers arguing about which type of fairies are the most aerodynamic. I hadn't even heard of the journals in which they publish their studies or had any concept that they actually did studies.
One of the creation scientists mentioned, Ken Wise, has a PhD in Geology from Harvard. Not all creationists are youtube idiots trying to pose a single question that will unhinge all of science overnight.
Sure, I would accept it, but I still would not believe in God.