RE: The best scientist is a disinterested observer, who gathers data and applies logic to deduce the most likely physical mechanism causing the observed effects. That is about as removed from creation “science” as possible.
Well in this case, if one is a real disinterested observer, one will have to be OPEN to all possible explanations, not simply materialistic ones. THAT is what creationists argue.
In which case, I will have to say that the accusation that one is “disinterested” should not simply be leveled against creationists. Many hard core evolutionists are not disinterested observers themselves IMHO.
Creationists do not disregard Scientific investigations that deal with the physical world. In fact THAT IS PART OF THEIR OBSERVATION. Neither do they deny that the The “starting point” of science is observation of the physical world and phenomena. They DO observe the physical world but look at it differently.
What they insist on however is this -— The argument that materialist evolution can explain the origins of the universe or of life on earth ultimately is a philosophical one, not a testable scientific proposition.
I understand creationists as challenging the presumption of non-intelligence in popular & natural science the idea that no designing mind or minds are or were responsible for most aspects of nature.
Those who are not 6 day creationists in fact want to follow all evidence regardless of whether this mind was natural or not, material or not.
In fact, creationists insist that all of the following areas of science use evidence of an intelligent maker as the major or sole means of study.
They insist that the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of :
Archeology: Is that rock formation slow or catastrophic?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by someone intelligent?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
So, What are the characteristics of a successful creation model?
A reasonable creation model can possess all of the following characteristics:
Intelligence is identified
The model is detailed
The model can be refined
The model is testable and falsifiable
The model can make predictions
How does the biblic model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible
The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence.
Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model.
Creationists complain that many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can’t have it both ways!
Creationists thus insist that a biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, they insist that a biblical model does make predictions.
For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA ( mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA.
Again, I am just presenting their arguments, not saying that I am an advocate for them. I am still on the fence on this one.
We're open to any explanation that fits the available evidence, and which is consistent with known physical law. That's the catch, of course: science can ONLY deal with the physical. If it can't be observed, measured, and tested, then it isn't science.
I find a huge contradiction in creationists who reject science because it is not metaphysical, but then want scientists to use a metaphorical text as the basis for their physical investigations.
Trying to force science to operate according to an ideology doesn't work; Lysenkoism was disastrous for the Soviet Union. There is no reason to think that trying to force scientists to practice "creation science" would work any better.