It is considered to be science to delve into how things evolved and look for evidence that shows the interconnectedness of species as they had developed thousands to millions of years ago.
But assumptions have to be made because of the imperfections of the fossil record, and there is no obviously close transitional fossils, or living species that show a clear progressive path to more complex descendants. There are most upsetting gaps, and where ever one can assume some missing transitional link there are problems caused by the abrupt appearance of something complex, such as a complex organ or radicle change in chemistry of proteins, enzymes hormones, etc, that has no precursor in what is its assumed ancestor. Also some complex system is often dropped in the descendant, or in exchange, so that the switch from one system to the other precludes the possibility that the one is descended from the other.

If the intermediate was better than its forerunner then why aren't there plenty of the intermediate in the fossil record, or even living today?
If making up stories as to how something evolved along a path from some simpler species, thus supporting your chosen paradigm, is acceptable as science, then Intelligent Design is even more certainly a science, as it depends on real operational science to give an insight to the complexity, and the past, and has to have facts, not made up speculation as in ever changing evolutionary assumptions.

There are many different systems of eyes, all wired into the brain to make them useful. Spiders have two types, often four simple eyes and two compound eyes on the same spider, but nothing in evolutionary stories show any scientific reason or path for developing any eyes in the first place, except in assumptive story telling.
There is an enormous complexity in even the mounting of eyes, and also the connections to the various types of brain, mosquitos snails cats and birds, and the data transmission format. How then does the brain re-assemble the data to get a three dimensional image, that is better than a TV screen?

All this is complex science that ID is qualified to research because of their sound scientific basis, whereas evolution can only make the usual statement that "it exists so it must be the result of unguided mistakes and accidents" and then try to explain it. As evolution cannot plan ahead, two required components, I mean complex components, not just one bit of DNA changed, are unlikely to occur in the one member of a species within thousands generations. If they do, then it will be a burden because it needs more connections, or a knowledge of how to use it, so that the lack of some aspect will cause that line of the species to fail and be eradicated.

Just because one makes an assumption that there is a God, instead of that there is no god or intelligence required, does not stop one from being highly scientific, in fact it forbids making up stories that stretch the truth, as one has to give account to God. Often creationists base part of their research on research done by evolutionists, and sometimes this was incorrect, as in the case of the amount of meteoric dust falling on the earth, and when creationists reasoned what this would mean for a moon landing, they got blamed instead of the original researcher, who didn't allow for contamination from dust borne up from the earth to high altitudes.

This is where creation science comes to the fore, because if God created then various designs of some system or organs, such as a particular design of eyes, can be used in totally different unrelated species, as if it had been accidentally evolved randomly throughout the kingdom. This would also account for the different scientifically complex eye designs, such as crayfish have eyes based on reflections inside square boxes, which is now being copied for radio telescopes,

There are two forms of evidence that could be used to establish evolution, intelligent design or creation as the most likely prime cause of life. If the randomness of appearance of complex designs, where something appears in unrelated species, with slight modification to fit into the species, happens so often without a conceivable evolutionary path, that it defies logic, except that some entity designed and made it that way, then perhaps this is what is true, if so then look for the designer.

The other way is written records that show that some entity knew before hand what would happen in the future. The Bible is full of such predictions that were accurately fulfilled, sometimes hundreds of years later, such as the crucifixion of Jesus, 700 years beforehand in Isaiah, also in Psalm 22, that the messiah would ride in on a donkey was stated 500 years before the event, then the Jews didn't hear anything for over 400 years, and then it happened, as predicted in many other prophesies as well. It was not the fault of the Jews, as it may have been just a dozen or so who engineered it, and appealed to the Romans who had absolute control, and should have stopped it as they found no fault in Jesus, but it was God's decision, and he had to keep to it or we would not be able to trust his word.

We are also told of our future, both in the old testament, and the new, of a world government that is coming upon us, a trading mark in the right hand or the forehead, ( replaces banking and credit cards that can be stolen ) and a demonic world religion, that all come together when Israel becomes a nation in the holy land.
The matter is easily settled if you want to know the God of the bible, Jesus, and take him at his word. I can guarantee that his word is true, and he is always available if you sincerely ask him. This is the best way, as you then find out the answers to a lot more things.

http://creationtheory.8k.com/salvation.html
A brief explanation of how to get right with God.

Go to index page

URLs with scientific information on the subject or guidance not based on hype.