You say that creationism isn’t scientific. Fair enough. But surely, you’d say that it’s at least a possibility that it might be true, after all, proving a negative is pretty difficult. So if it is true, then it’s not scientific?

Does a theory really have to propose “useful” experiments? I’m assuming that by useful, you mean possible? And what types of experiments, in the instance of creationism would you be willing to accept?

If you take evolution, for example, you can say things like “If our theory is correct, we should see certain similarities between these groups of animals, and differences between these similar animals that have been separated” and so forth. Now maybe this isn’t the type of experiments you are talking about, but if it is, the same things can be said of creationism. “If our theory is correct, and an intelligent being has designed mankind, we should see some order and structure in humans.” Alot of it depends on what your presuppositions are.

Scientists don’t usually claim that their art is merely a matter to catalogue observations, but rather a tool for advancing both predictability and more importantly truths about the world around us. But really, there are a million ways to explain things, we can come up with a formula for gravitational pull, and atomic cohesion but the idea of gravity and its cause and of atomic cohesion have no explanation. They are just made up to patch holes that offer no “useful experiment” for their existence or truth. One could just as easily start with a god and say that god makes sure all those formulas work instead of this “gravity” thing.