I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.
The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.
Science is far far more open than religion that
after all cannot possibly be wrong.
Science does not do absolutes, like
' can't possibly be". Again, it's religion does that.
As for " alternate theories", bring on the data.
Ever notice how data never can affect flood- belief?
Challenge me on flood and see for yourself.
As for "explain with creationist view", the defense
explained how OJ was innocent. "Dog ate homework"
is an ecplanation.
Your " brilliant" PhD guys cannot show any data
to disprove a y science in favour of creationist interpretations..
See Dr K Wise, PhD Yec paleontologist-
"...even if all the evidence in the
universe turns against yec, I will
still be yec as that is what the Bible
seems to indicate."
That, my friend, is the refined essence
of intellectual dishonesty.
It is impossible to be an educated yec
who is intellectually honest.