It does really need to be conclusively stated (ad nauseam), "creation science is an oxy-moron". Creation 'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins and, therefore, it does not belong in the scientific arena any more than the 'theory' of leprechauns and the 'theory' of unicorns do - perhaps it could be included in a course on comparative religion or abnormal psychology, but certainly not science.

As A.J. Phillips has poignantly found, left unchecked, Creation 'Science' will damage the public perceptions of both Christianity and science. In a way that Charles Darwin never could, Creation 'Science' has the potential to make monkeys of us all.

Isaac Asimov sums it up quite nicely when he makes his lament, "...it is precisely because it is fashionable for Americans [and Australians, no doubt] to know no science, even though they may be well educated otherwise, that they so easily fall prey to nonsense. They thus become part of the armies of the night, the purveyors of nitwittery, the retailers of intellectual junk food, the feeders on mental cardboard, for their ignorance keeps them from distinguishing nectar from sewage.

Relda

I think you mean to say that 'Creation Science' is an antilogy. I dont really think it qualifies as a figure of speech and I suspect you regard it as an actual rather than apparent contradiction of terms.

relda,
rather than comparing Creation Science to “ the 'theory' of leprechauns and the 'theory' of unicorns“ I would compare it to “Liberal Science“ or “ALP science”: It is legitimate to ask which party better reflects the political scene, and whose programme is better suited for Australia; it is just not legitimate to claim that (natural) science supports your political preferences. Similarly, it is legitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe (or that the universe is self-explanatory or what); it is just not legitimate to claim that science can justify, or even verify, the premise your world view is built on.

Relda you said..
Creation 'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins and, therefore, it does not belong in the scientific arena...

The quality (or lack thereof) of the hypothesis does not, in itself, invalidate the scientific work done by creation scientists. Clearly the 'hypothesis' of creation is an article of faith rather than evidence-based and the raison-detre of creation science work is apologetic rather than being driven by intellectual curiosity.

As for the rest of your recent post it was little more than a barrage of abuse and of little value to the debate at hand. Indeed, it gave the impression that you might be 'irrationally committed' to a belief in evolution.

There is also a curious strand to this thread regarding the use of the words 'hypothesis' and 'fact'. It has been suggested by some that well-established scientific theories like gravity and evolution become, by virtue of the confidence placed in them, new facts. This is plain nonsense. Fact refers to a repeatable experiment that produces consistent results. Hypotheses are formed as plausible explanations for some set of known 'facts'. It is extremely rare to be able to 'prove' a scientific theory which is what would be required to establish it as a fact. Gravity and evolution have not been 'proved' in this sense.

Much of this debate would evaporate if we used language a little more precisely and made clearer distinctions between metaphorical and technical language.

waterboy,
I referred to the term 'creation science' in the context as you used it - and presumably meant . 'Creation science' is literature based (or 'bible' based). The contradiction occurs because it is argued (by creation scientists)that geological and biological 'facts' must always attest to a literal biblical truth. This does not form a part of the scientific process - it is simply not legitimate science.

George,
The grandparents of today's 'scientific creationists' were fundamentalists, to be sure, and fundamentalism appealed to biblical authority in a fashion parallel to the Roman Catholic appeal to church authority. The difference between Fundamentalist authoritarianism and contemporary 'creation science' is these people are willing to argue their case in the arena of science in order to legitimize their version or interpretation of biblical account. Their assumption is that biblical truth and scientific truth belong to the same domain. When there is a conflict between a scientific assertion and a religious assertion, then we allegedly have a conflict in scientific theories. The creationists argue that the book of Genesis is itself a theory which tells us how the world was physically created: God fixed the distinct kinds (species) of organisms at the point of original creation. They did not evolve. From a theological viewpoint I can see the process evolution as being creative - however, I do not take the Hebrew concept of Elohim (the polytheistic notion of multiple gods) in Genesis as literal. The development of written language was in its infancy around 4,000 years ago - probably also around the time Genesis was written. In our infancy, where we literally marked the beginning of time, we created our myths based on the eons of story telling.

relda,
as far as I could understand you, I'll probably agree with what you wrote. I just do not see the relevance to what I said, namely that "God created (or nobody created) the universe" is a (metaphysical) statement that makes 'logical' sense (provided the terms involved are properly defined) but is not a scientific statement (like e.g. statements about the 'mechanics' of evolution) with conclusions that could be experimentally verified or falsified.

Authority - being the Magisterium of the RC Church, or a collegium of respected scientists-specialists - can serve as a good guideline for you when forming your own opinion (on theology, exegesis, ethics, etc. or physics, biology etc.) but has nothing to do with the unscientific - I would prefer the term meta-scientific - nature of the problem of Creation.