Because writing history is not science either.
What aspects of writing history is not science?
People can believe or not what was written down throughout history, but that does not make everything written down a mere belief. Now if you believe that everything was written down as a belief, then why is that different than believing that a scientist is just observing what they believe to be facts. We trust scientist to leave out personal prejudices, but is that not giving up their humanity when they attempt to distance themselves from themselves?
No, we expect scientists to be influenced by personal prejudices. Which is why science needs repeatable and peer-reviewed conclusions.
When talking about History and Science, it always takes more than one source to make any claim enter the picture. After this more evidence will be sought to try to increase confidence in that claim. When contrasting evidence pops up, the claim needs to be re-evaluated in light of that new evidence.
Is any of this happening with regard to the history YEC wants us to believe? Do they ever alter their claims? Of course not, that would be blasphemous. Well, that's also a-ok, but it isn't and never will be scientific.
One can fight the battle that YEC does not fit, but there will always be people who will accept it at face value, and not just as a belief system
Pull that bus over to the pedestrian side of the road, and stop and think what you're saying here.
If you accept anything at face value, it's a belief system. Anything.
I am pretty sure that it is easy to use science to make people look stupid. Seems like a waste of science, but if that is the way people are, they will use anything to make other people look bad.
If you visit Creation dot com, you will notice how incredibly easy it is. But it's the Creationists themselves who make themselves look stupid by insisting they are doing science and then come up with their ridiculous and, more damningly, dishonest conclusions based on blatant lies.
Everyone is free to dismiss the conclusions science draws and not be judged on it, for instance when it goes against a deeply held belief they have. That isn't stupid nor dishonest. But when Creationism steps into the realm of science, they will be held accountable for it, just as every single other person who does so. We're not singling out Creationists in this regard. We're treating them the same as we would treat any scientist publishing a paper. We don't go: well it's your opinion, and you spent a lot of time and effort in it, we'll accept it.
Answer me this: why would YEC so desperately want their claims to be supported by science? It's all they ever go on about. Why does YEC go out of their way to cherry pick fragments of data, while ignoring mountains of them? Believe you me, the only one who is trying to bring science into the picture is YEC. If it is such a faulty, untrustworthy tool, why would they want to do that?
Why would they embarrass themselves like that? I'll tell you: to convince other people. And those who provide the content for creation dot com must know they are lying through their teeth and distorting facts when they see fit. I've spent quite a lot of time on that site, and it's inescapable. It even has a section:
how to debate evolutionists for well, Christ's sake. Why would that be there? What use could that have besides teaching YECs to muddy the waters and smokescreen the issues? What's wrong with phrasing your own arguments. With asking your own questions? All of it is geared towards lies and dishonesty.
I though I made "damningly" up, and it appears it's a real word. Ziggy learns every day.
There is nothing about YEC beliefs that is scientific. That's why it doesn't belong in science classes. It's not any more scientific than "Chariots of the Gods" or Velikovsky's nonsense.
