Reply to comment
Misleading Title
January 14, 2008
by davefromroseville (not verified),
1 year 45 weeks ago
Comment: 26968
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Creationists will doubt the "classical theory of evolution" with or without a reason. It is their right to have personal doubt, but it is not of scientific interest.
For creationism to earn my respect as a scientific theory, it must provide something similar to what other new, up and coming theories must provide. A self consistant description that matches known observeables better than the old theory.
The new theory must be more accurate or match a broader set of observables, or predict new observables better than the old theory.
Is creationism self consistant? How can an observer test to find out if something is created or not? What are the characteristics of a created object versus a non-created object? Is this test self consistant? Could you and I apply this test to the same object and get the same result?
What observables does creationism match better than evolution or other theories?
What testable outcomes does creationism predict?
Where are the people who are making grants to study these questions?