Original sentence: Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to qualify as scientific because it lacks empirical support, supplies no testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid.Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences
Edited sentence: 1 mutation every six generations is the average rate of mutations.But of course, the vast majority of scientists never enter into the debate.Creation science or scientific creationism is a  form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.Creation scientists have leveled the same charge in the other direction.Harvard (Developmental and Cell Biology) has proven that it  does qualify as scientific because it empirical does provides testable hypotheses and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically testable theories.He has a testable hypotheses.He has not been taken up on this challenge by any fellow Harvard Ph.He predicts that its mutation rate will be one every six weeks.If evolution provides testable hypotheses like this Harvard Ph.In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the evolutionary scientific community is that evolution is true.Inferences and extrapolation are required.It also leads to a testable hypothesis which Dr.It is a fact that neither evolution ph p.It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on scientific results to argue that various accounts  in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid.Jeanson has laid before the evolutionist.Jeanson, Ph.Let’s go into the forest, see a fox.Many who do so must because the alternative is impossible.Most scientists have never considered an alternative because it is not naturalist.Perhaps as many as 5% of scientists actually study both sides and then come to a conclusion.Science does not have a way to directly test origins.So the small percentage of scientists who do engage in the debate who are convinced evolutionists are going to make reckless and wild charges instead of careful, measured statements that can be demonstrated in the laboratory.Some evolutionary  biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.That’s obviously a problem.The greatest number of differences in the human population found is 123 (mitochondrial dna differences).This gives 738 generations.We can both make predictions about how fast his mutation rate is.cell biologist.creationist  , then they will take him up on it, make a prediction of the Fox (or any other animal and their mutation rate should certainly be in keeping with their theory.supernatural causes