Creationism is unjustifiable pt2

Usually Creationism implies some sort of "literal" interpretation of the Bible, at least Genesis. Sorry for not making this clear; however, this has explicitly been the stance of most creationist outfits in the US. You seem to have a varying interpretation; nonetheless, you still define yourself as a creationist, which is fine. “You suggest that the Creationism is not possible, I postulate the exact opposite and that based on science itself the creation and manipulation of a planet is possible. Point of fact, every single 'Theory' you have expressed simply adds to the foundation of knowledge that a BEING of some sort, call it what you will... COULD create a planet and institute life upon said world through use of scientific principle.” This entire section underscores the problem I am trying to argue against, especially “call it what you will…”. Creationism implies by its very name and by the words it is associated with such as creation science that it is a field of inquiry that produces knowledge of creation. Creationism’s goals are the same regardless if one interprets creation differently. If we are free to “call it what we will,” it is no longer a field of inquiry but faith, which requires no justification and could actually be unjustified. Everyone has unjustifiable beliefs. They can become problematic in this case when we pass them along as a form of inquiry, or even as science. “Since a Being (lets call him God) could organize a planet using scientific principle i.e. natural sciences, your postulation that Creationism is unjustifiable is not true.” This simply does not follow. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. How can God create things using science? That is the question you must answer. Again, creationism implies that this can be known without faith. If you want to have faith in this (whichever God you choose), that is fine, but you cannot pass it off as a field of inquiry. Creationism is unjustifiable in addition to the points I have already addressed because it disguises faith as inquiry, or empirical knowledge. You have still failed to create some sort of criteria that can distinguish creationism from other kinds of knowledge production (why is creationism unique? What does it give us that other forms of knowledge production do not?). It cannot be viewed as something that incorporates all knowledge in order to produce a conception of God because it must stand on its own merits (evidence, hypotheses, etc.) and it must be unique from other forms of knowledge production such as sociology, biology, or metaphysics. Postulating that one can prove creation, then simply step-aside and claim that the creator is conceived through faith is intellectually dishonest. Creationism must be able to demonstrate how the universe was created and who created it. Notice that I used demonstrate because it implies that one uses empirical evidence and creates a testable hypothesis. You must show how creationism can create testable hypotheses to prove its claims (keep in mind that any answer you get must be uniquely creationist, meaning that you used some sort of unique criteria to evaluate your evidence). You have suggested Genesis; however, that is not testable. Creationists have failed to do what is expected of all fields of inquiry; therefore, it is an unjustifiable belief.