re: #114 CuriousLurker

Okay, the last sentence makes sense. The rest, not so much. I mean if “creation science” reaches conclusions solely from scientific facts, why tag n the “creation” part instead of just calling it plain old “science”? Gah!

Thanks, Sergey.

It’s actually equivalent to intelligent design ploy. Not in the sense of whether things are designed or not, but in how the conclusion about the act of creation is based simply on denial of evolution. They try to deny evo, pretend this proves creation - ergo creation science.