I thought creationism was simply the assertation that the universe and all its complexities must be the work of a creator? In other words, a god. I didn't realize there was an entire science behind it. It's neat to hypothesize these things but I think it would more appropriately fall under the category of philosophy rather than science; one can't exactly perform tests or experiments in a lab. Admittedly, I know nothing about creationism so I can't be certain.

That aside, I do have one tiny point to nitpick about which was printed in the article. It seems to be insinuating that modern science rests upon creationism as its foundation due to the scientists of a bygone era. The trick is science, by definition, is prone to change and adaptation as new information is uncovered. According to this logic, it doesn't matter what the founding fathers (so to speak) of science knew in their time. There's absolutely no reason for us to stick to older scientific models if they are outdated and proved inaccurate. A case in point being, there's absolutely no way the Earth could be only 6,000 years old. I mean, not unless the designer in question deliberately set up the world to look like it's far more ancient when in reality it's very very young. A deception, if you will.

It's pretty neat stuff to discuss though. It raises the whole dream argument (are we even awake?), solipism, etc. I guess I just don't see how it can be scientific - scientific in the same sense as chemistry or physics, etc. But again I'm a bit naieve about this stuff. As I said, I don't fully know what creationism even is.

Feedback anyone?