Re:Theory. (Score 1)

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences

So they are overtly evolutionists and would be unlikely to publish something in their FAQ that disputed the evolutionist position. This is no different to what AiG do with TJ.

There you go. This is what makes any appeal to a deity a non-theory.

Not at all... my appeal to a deity is one the assumptions to my creationist 'theory'. Just as you would assume the non-existence (or non-interference) of a deity as one of your assumptions. Now that we've each developed theories based on those assumptions, we test our theories against observed evidence and change our theories (but not our assumptions) to suit.

There is no observation that cannot arguably be consistent with creation by a divine power.

Sure there is. If the world didn't run by a series of rational, definable rules (science) then this would seem to indicate the absence of a rational, ordered creator. Finding intelligent life on another planet would seriously rock my assumptions as this doesn't make sense in the biblical framework. An anthropological record stretching beyond the biblical record would rock my assumptions. There are lots of other things.

Similarly there might by other things that may disturb your assumptions. A young universe would. The lack of intermediate fossils might.

Science can explain why grass is green, but creation science can as well: God willed it to be so.

Creation science would say that grass is blue, not just because God willed it to be so, but because it was appropriate for the grass (i.e. photosynthesis etc). However I don't agree with special pleading... e.g. arguments where a creationist might suggest that light was created en-route to the earth, or that God buried the fossils when he made the Earth, these are not scientific arguments in my mind.

Is there any testable hypothesis that could result in the rejection of creation theory?

IMO, I don't believe there is. But I ask you back, is there any testable hypothesis that could result in the rejection of evolution theory?

I'll take a look at talkorigins and will consider posting there if they seem open to an equitable discussion. I guess what creationists are asking for is not so much for belief to believe our theory, but rather for people to admit that it is as much a valid science as is evolution. Scientists assumptions are influenced by their world-view and while the majority of scientists would believe evolutionary theory now, and not creation theory, this is not necessarily due to a lack of evidence for the creationist argument, but rather because of the humanistic world-view present across the world at this time. Those scientists who are brought up with a Christian world view that choose to believe creation are not necessarily any less educated, intelligent, biased or closed minded than those on the other side of the argument.

Enough from me... off I go to talkorigins.