I tend to be a little more practical perhaps when I consider if creationism is a valid science or not. I don't think it is and there are several reasons.
First off, while science has a naturalistic approach where it wants to describe testeable and observeable, you know, figure stuff out, creationism just accept that there's a God which can conveniently explain anything. Such thinking does not promote inquiry, rather it does the opposite in a very unscientific way and so called creationist "scientists" tend to further their agendas only by exclusion, ie. feeble attempts at disproving evolution and other scientific theories. Because of this, creationism is not very able to answer questions that would have been useful for us such as when did the first cell appear or how do genetic diseases appear and how are they passed on.
Furthermore, in a society where you replaced science with creationism, how would you know which creationist theory was right? Everything would be up to interpretation by everyone, people would mix what should have been scientific thinking with religious thinking and frankly, I believe it would be really counter-productive for any society.
About your Duhem-Quine problem argument, I would say that is invalid because God is not really testable by any auxiliary hypotheses I know of.
|