re: #100 Naso Tang

I think you make the same error that creationists do; namely suggest that creationism has anything at all to do with “scientific methodology”. It doesn’t and therefore by definition has no place in science, nor does it offer anything to “study”.

That’s my point exactly! You can be scientific in analyzing another’s methods, whether or not they are true/have any scientific merit is up to the scientist. And when one studies the data, they will OBVIOUSLY come to the conclusion that creationism is flawed. I’m not saying there is ANY scientific methodology to creationism, but as a basis for studying evolution, you can look at opposing theories, deconstruct them, and prove why yours is correct. I’m a scientist, creationism is bunk. BUNK I SAY!