Are creationism and naturalistic science equal?

Note collected following a discussion with Mark (log).

What right does science have to a claim on THE truth?

• See Dawkins (1998), Wolpert (1992) and Sagan (1996).
• Myers, "A Minnesota Creationist in the Senate":
  • "It's true, I'm pretty dogmatic about 2+2=4, and that one shouldn't light an open flame near an open oxygen cylinder, or that the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. We tend to think there are some realities that should be taught to our kids."

Is it wrong/arrogant to criticise creationism?

• Creationists make criticism and debunking of their belief legitimate when they claim creationism/intelligent design is scientific. In the real of science bad theories which do not follow the scientific method are not equal to other theories, and can not be immune from criticism just because they are part of somebody's belief system.
• S. James Gates Jr:
• "But, for me, personally, this debate has another dimension. I spent all of my teenage years, as mentioned in the introduction, in Orlando, Florida. As many people know, the southern African American community is one with a deep tradition of religious faith. The bulk of my religious training occurred in the confines of the African American Methodist Episcopal Church. There, we were taught that faith is to be anchored on the inhuman perfection of religion. If intelligent design is accepted as science, then like all scientific theories, it is in principle possible to disprove it by the actions of human observation and thought. Thus, those who would join the inhuman perfection of religion to the human imperfection of science put both at grave peril for anyone who deeply contemplates them. Many in the AME church tradition, like me, must reject this idea that by thoughts and actions of man our faith can be called into question. This is the very greatest danger, in my opinion, of the notion of intelligent design." "Einstein's Lesson for the Third Millennium"
• John Rennie:
• "All those people who feel that denial of ID is heresy are missing the damage they do to their own faith by forcing it to sit atop a platform of scientific argument." -- Protecting Science from Religion (and vice-versa)
• Creationists have claimed religion and science are incompatable, opening religion to question:
• Arguing that the lack of a disclaimer would favor irreligion over religion, promoting hostility towards religion. Apparantly, Alabama and Texas feel that evolution is hostile towards religion. De Rerum Natura
• Brian Leiter:
• ...civility is the greatest gift one can bestow on the creationist conmen, the right-wing liars, and the religious bigots--not to mention the hordes of ignorant blowhards in the blogosphere. To treat their positions with civility is to already legitimate them. The consequence of doing so is now available for all the world to see: the intellectually and morally depraved state of public culture in America today.
• Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
• St Augustine:
• Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm