Creationism is scientific

Before I proceed with my rebuttal I'd like to show what a scientific theory is:1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.3.It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.4. It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.5. It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. To be considered scientific it must fulfill the first three(and hopefully the last 2) criteria. If it fails any one of the first three it's not a theory. We look at the fossils and the lack of transitional fossils and the complexity of life and other factors as evidence.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Basically not finding evidence for something isn't evidence that it doesn't exist because there is the possibility that you just didn't find it. Therefore lack of transitional fossils is not evidence(however we HAVE found transitional fossils.) As for the complexity of life: complexity doesn't imply a designer. For example snowflakes are incredibly complex but no one says they were designed.As for predictions...I've said it before and I'll say it once more, until somebody answers me on this subject: the Rapid Decay Theory. It has been accurate on multiple different planets. It accurately predicted that this planet has a magnetic field, this planet doesn't, this planet used to, and stuff like that. The Dynamo Theory has been wrong before where the Rapid Decay Theory has been right. And there's plenty more out there.RAPID DECAY THEORY: 1. It has been proven that the magnetic field fluctuates over thousands of years invalidating the idea of a magnetic field half-life.2. The supposed half-life was gained using 150 years of data; not nearly enough for a prediction of activity over geological time scales.I'd also like to point out that Dynamo Theory has progressed quite far since the discovery of the error in it's prediction. In the present it IS actually able to predict the magnetic field of Uranus which it failed on decades ago. Lending credit to the revised dynamo theory is that when the data is set in a simulation, it replicates magnetic reversals; something the rapid decay theory can't do. So, we use evidence and we make predictions. Sounds relatively scientific to me.Unfortunately for creationism, the criteria for a scientific theory is that it must be consistantly accurate across a broad field of scientific inquiry. Because of this it has not yet fulfilled any of the criteria.HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this.Due to this it fails the 4th criterion taking away from its scientific merit.However, we don't have blind faith in this. We gather evidence to support our cause. And if there is an objection to Creationism, we will find a way to defend our theory, with science.The problem with the above statement is that that evidence often has more parsimonius explanations and often times the evidence gathered is outdated or uses unreliable methods. A good example of this is Helium dating; it is used as evidence by creationists over radiometric dating despite the fact that it is less reliable. So while it does attempt to gather evidence; that evidence is often times unreliable and not repeatedly tested failing criterion 1 and 2.Often times the science used to defend creationism is twisted and misrepresented. Of course, if we were ever backed into a corner and there was no way to defend ourselves scientifically, we could always rely upon the contention that it was a miracle.This alone makes it unscientific.However, we don't typically do this, except in regards to the Creation of the Universe and planet Earth, and maybe a few other cases such as Noah's Flood.Meaning that it is unscientific because the evidence by your own admittal is NOT consistently accurate.CONCLUSIONCreationism has not fulfilled any of the criteria as of now.PSEUDOSCIENCE: Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.CRITERION FOR IDENTIFYING SOMETHING AS PSEUDOSCIENCEVague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous languageOne of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared; what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims are never specific but rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims. Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiraciesDEFINITELY! Young Earth Creationists constantly claim that peer review is rigged and won't submit for peer review.Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the ideaPseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed.I think pro's statement says it all here: "HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this."Misuse of scientific terms One of the easiest ways to gain the trappings of science is to describe pseudoscience using the words of science, or terms that sound scientific. Baraminology; a term invented to replace "kinds." It sounds scientific but is essentially the same thing as "kinds."Misrepresentation of termsThey frequently refer to macro-evolution as a completely different process than micro-evolution while in reality they are the same process.Poor standards of evidence In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias. pseudoscience promoters are only interested in evidence that confirms the initial idea. This confirmation bias means that any evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored. Confirmation bias is readily apparent. Creationists like to take people with PhD's who support them and use it as support for their ideas completely ignoring the vastly greater number who don't believe in creationism. In addition they repeatedly ignore most modern studies instead preferring older ones that support their claim. Reliance on outdated or later refuted scholarly works Sometimes a pseudoscience supporter will present an scholarly article from a work in the related field as "proof" that the claim is not pseudoscientific even via further research it can be shown that one study was a glitch. ABSOLUTELY! It repeatedly makes claims based on outdated and later refuted works. For example rapid decay theory is outdated and has been refuted.NOTE: it was refuted by proving that the Earth's magnetic field does not exponentially decay. Ideas are unfalsifiableHere's how it goes(even according to pro:) if we can't explain it scientifically we'll simply invoke a miracle to explain it. Therefore it is impossible to falsify because everything that it can't explain(such as how Noah had enough room for all the animals on the ark) is attributed to a miracle.Clear political and religious motivation A huge red "pseudoscience flag" should go up when an idea is pushed against the backdrop of a strong agenda that has nothing to do with the idea being proposed at all. This is most easily seen with creationism and intelligent design where the "science" is an afterthought to the general battle between "evil materialism" and religion. This can often be seen when an individual suddenly starts promoting a pseudoscientific idea shortly after a major political or religious conversion, or a list of "supporters" of an idea are all unified in some sort of philosophy or religion. Well it's based on the bible so it's pretty much impossible for it not to have clear religious motivation.CONCLUSION 2Creationism is a poorly disguised pseudoscience. This is shown by the fact that it obviously is a religious idea in addition to it fitting all the criteria for pseudoscience.SOURCES:http://rationalwiki.org...http://www.talkorigins.org...