Is creationism scientific?

Dear Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald,

I am writing to you to express my feelings towards the article on Creationism, that was published in the herald 2 days ago. I feel outrage at the fact that you could even think about putting such rubbish in your newspaper, informing the public about absolute nonsense. Creationism is most definitely NOT scientific.

Creationism is the belief that the origin of life and the universe come from specific acts of divine creation, as in the bible. Some say that it is a science, and some say that is not.

I believe that the problem with classifying creationism as a science or a non-science, is the "demarcation problem". The issue with exactly how you can classify something as a science or non - science, exactly where we should draw the line between them? Because of this problem, there are many different arguments for and against Creationism being classified as a science/non-science, but I believe even despite this blurry line, creationism can definitely be classified as unscientific, and it is definitely not a science.

Creationism relies on supernatural intervention and miracles. That is the evidence behind creationism. We cannot test wether God exists, no way to ascertain wether a supernatural being like God does exist and has really created everything in this world. This is untenable as this cannot be tested. It cannot be disproved, or enquired into, it simply exists, and there is nothing you can do about it to solidify the theory. It does not explain the theory, and thus it has nothing to "back it up".

A scientific theory should explain facts, and phenomena ( data ) that are observed in the natural world. How well a scientific theory does this, is a good measurement of how "good" or actually scientific...