because whatever you're calling creation science, is not a field that I've learned creation science to be.
I.e., your terms are vagueries.
...
The "creation" science I've been engaged in learning dates long before 2000. So, your ideas would have much later developments than my own.
Perhaps we should get specific about so-called creation science. An interesting issue is the distribution of fossils through the geological column. According to evolution, the distribution is chronological, the deeper down the column, the older the fossil. It is simple, it makes firm predictions, and those predictions have been confirmed experimentally.
Creationists, however, posit the whole (or nearly whole?) geological column being laid down in a single year. So why are birds and mammals always found towards the top, dinosaurs in the middle and trilobites towards the bottom? In fact, it is considerably more complicated than that, and
this article, written by a creationist, actually has a good summary of the issues creationists face. Obviously the author argues against the evolutionist position, but is honest enough to admit that most creationist scenarios do not actually make sense.
However, I am going to look at the others. This is the more mainstream (for creationists) view, from
Answers in Genesis.
Indeed, not only did the animals and plants have to be buried rapidly by huge masses of water-transported sediments to be fossilized, but the general vertical order of burial is also consistent with the biblical flood. The first fossils in the record are of marine animals exclusively, and it is only higher in the strata that fossils of land animals are found, because the Flood began in the ocean basins (“the fountains of the great deep burst open”) and the ocean waters then flooded over the continents. ...
...
It is significant that the marine organisms fossilized in the earliest Flood strata, such as the trilobites, brachiopods, etc., are very “streamlined” and quite dense. The shells of these and most other marine invertebrates are largely composed of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, and similar minerals which are quite heavy (heavier than quartz, for example, the most common constituent of many sands and gravels). This factor alone would have exerted a highly selective sorting action, not only tending to deposit the simpler (that is, the most spherical and undifferentiated) organisms first in the sediments as they were being deposited, but also tending to segregate particles of similar sizes and shapes. These could have thus formed distinct faunal “stratigraphic horizons,” with the complexity of structure of deposited organisms, even of similar kinds, increasing progressively upward in the accumulating sediments.
...
A second factor in the ranking of the likelihood of vertebrates being buried is how animals would react to the Flood. The behavior of some animals is very rigid and stereotyped, so they prefer to stay where they are used to living, and thus would have had little chance of escape. Adaptable animals would have recognized something was wrong, and thus made an effort to escape. Fish are the least adaptable in their behavior, while amphibians come next, and then are followed by reptiles, birds, and lastly, the mammals.
...
The third factor to be considered is the mobility of land vertebrates. Once they become aware of the need to escape, how capable would they then have been of running, swimming, flying, or even riding on floating debris? Amphibians would have been the least mobile, with reptiles performing somewhat better, but not being equal to the mammals’ mobility, due largely to their low metabolic rates. However, birds, with their ability to fly, would have had the best expected mobility, even being able to find temporary refuge on floating debris.
One thing that strikes me as how much the author pigeon-holes creatures.
All amphibians are more adaptable than
all the fish, but less adaptable than
all the reptiles. Is life really so simple? Of course not! Some dinosaurs are thought to have been pretty clever (troodon for example), and agile too. We would expect them to be one of the last to die. Certainly after, say, a mouse, who would be far less able to out-run rising flood waters.
What about plants? As the article I linked to above admits, flowering plants are only seen higher in the geological record. Is that because of their greater mobility? Or is their behaviour less rigid than, say, a trilobite? Of course not! They get around this by ignoring it.
And that brings us to how creationists cherry-pick the data. They ignore the fossils that do not fit. They ignore the species that fall outside their neat categories.
The methodology on the right of the image in the OP says "
Construct a Model Based on Pre-conceived ideas". Well this theory started with Genesis, so the ideas were conceived long, long ago.
Check.
Then "
Find Data that agrees with model". The above indicates they have done just that.
Check.
Then "
Discard Data that does not align with model". They ignore plant fossils, they ignore radiometric dating, etc.
Check.
This is a great fit.
Does it fit with the left side? Well I see "
Test with an Experiment" in there, and that certainly never happened!
In fact, "
Test with an Experiment" is a vital part of science that is worth expanding on. It goes hand-in-hand with "
Construct a Hypothesis", because what real scientists do is make predictions based on the hypothesis, and that is what is tested with experiment.
With regards to fossils the experiment is digging up fossils. If evolution is true, then the prediction is that transitional fossils will be found - and their approximate place in the geological record can be found. This is what happened with snakes; if snakes evolved, we would expect to see transitional fossils. This was tested by experiment, and has been confirmed.
A further prediction is that if snakes are related to other lizards, they will be genetically similar. Testing experimentally has again confirmed this to be true.
Evolutionary science follows the methodology on the left of the image in the OP. So-called creation science follows the methodology on the right.
So now the question is, which do you follow, Steve? Are you going to just continue to believe your pre-conceived ideas, and just ignore the evidence that does not fit? Are you going to just trust the "experts" who assure you creationism is true?
Or are you going to open your eyes and look at
all the evidence?