Original sentence: As such, it is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, and the age of the Earth, 'macroevolution', a global flood and the origin of humanity.As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with that view.Creation science is based on the belief that the scientific method permits positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are perceived to be inadequate, the belief that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant, and the belief that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with naturalistic theories of biological evolution and planet formation.Its proponents are mostly conservative Christians, although there are other supporters.Most scientists however consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience, and a misnomer, as they argue that it does not involve outside interpretation, objective criticism of evidence, or scientific reasoning and method
Edited sentence: As such, it is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, 'macroevolution', a global flood and the origin of humanity.As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge and data at odds with their view.Creation science is based on the belief by its supporters that the scientific method permits positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are perceived to be inadequate.Its proponents are primarily found among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as Fundamentalists.Most scientists consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience and a misnomer.Proponents of Creation science believe that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and planet formation.They argue that it does not involve outside interpretation, objective criticism of evidence, or scientific reasoning and method