BE INFORMED!
A contendable contention…
Empirical Science:
Physics, chemistry, biology and biochemistry are some examples of empirical sciences as they deal with repeatable events. If I conduct an experiment and document my process and results, another scientist can perform the same experiment and confirm the results of my experiment.
Forensic science:
Forensic science deals with events that are unrepeatable, a once only occurrence. A forensic scientist will investigate the evidence left after an event. The event is unique and unrepeatable. They will take the evidence and try to link the evidence to the originating event to form a conclusion about how the event took place.
A contendable contention…
To say that Creationism is not scientific or that it is not “good” science is quite foolish. For instance, the entire study of criminology would not be possible if it wasn’t for forensic science which is the study of unrepeatable events. At the root of forensic science is the basic tenant or logical truth that things/objects exist because of a prior event. A foot print confirms the existence of a foot; a fingerprint confirms the existence of a finger; something put it there. Although forensic science delves into much greater detail and specific characteristics of the existence of objects that participated in a particular unrepeatable event, to say that unrepeatable events are neither scientific nor can be proved scientifically is at best uninformed.
Creationism and evolution, (GTE) (as they pertain to earth’s origin), cannot be proved with empirical science. The creation of the world and its inhabitants was a one time event, we know that it was created by the fact that it exists; something put it there. The question is who or what was the creator. Evolution contends that genetic information has the ability to be added to DNA randomly over a period of time to create a more complex organism. This hypothesis is challenged by the theory of creationism which states that the world was created in 6 days by a divine creator. Many will take issue with my classifying evolution as a hypothesis and creationism as a theory which is why I will define the two terms. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity. Evolution has no place with these theories as there is so supporting evidence that genetic material has ever been added to the existing DNA of an organism.
Evolutionists can point to cases in which a mutation occurred that helped a creature to survive better than those without it, but it is the type of mutation that is at issue. Creationist have no problem with genetic mutation, even when these mutations actually help the organism undergoing the mutation, but to claim that genetic information was added to increase the complexity is false. In each and every case where mutation has been studied, rather than adding information, these mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it is expressed. Running the risk of sounding insensitive, the types of changes necessary to turn a fish into a philosopher are simply not evidenced anywhere in current scientific data or the fossil record.