Not all forms of creationism can be pseudoscience, because not all forms of creationism even pretend to be science. (Then it might also depend one's notion of science; if it's limited natural sciences, it's obvious that "creationism" is not "science" - and IME most "creationist" are inclined to agree on this; if we count philosophy of religion as a science, then certain forms of creationism might count as science.)Ahzoh wrote:Well I obviously knew that and I didn't refer to YECs only, but it doesn't matter because it's all pseudoscience.
Now there seems to be a whole bunch of issues intertwined in this discussion:
1) What is a proper "scientific method"?
2) What is the relation between science and reality?
3) What is the normative aspect involved in science?
4) What is the status of other means of gaining knowledge than science?
5) What is the epistemic status of theism?
6) What is the truth status of theism?
7) Etc etc etc
In order for the discussion to be fruitful, I think it's best to try to keep the different questions apart, and be careful about which one(s) one is talking about at the moment.
The distinction between "religions" and "non-religions" is not clear-cut. Communism (and various other philosophies) lacks some of the traditional characteristics usually associated with "religions" - such as beliefs in deities or in life after death. But it can still have other characteristics that makes it similar to a religion - such as providing an overarching framework according to which things are interpreted, a view of history and various ethical guidelines, as well as its psychological grip of its faithful adherents. (Yes, it's not uncommon to hear ex-members of communist groups to compare their former beliefs to those of a religious cult.)Ahzoh wrote:Communism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy.
Are you telling me you can't distinguish the two?