Is Creation Science, scientific? (Talk.Origins)

Wikipedia's article on creation science has several scientific criticisms. Although it can be said that it isn't scientific because it relies on the supernatural, there are qualifiers and limits that need to be placed on such an opinion. In the end the history of the development of science with the supernatural at its core is a clear hurdle that Wikipedia has not been able to overcome.

Response
The general tone of the article shows a lack of an accurate understanding of creation science. It is claimed that for an hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it needs to meet at least most of the stated qualifications, and ideally all them. Any hypothesis or conjecture that meets two or fewer of the qualifications is said to be totally unscientific.

Conclusion
So, contrary to the claims of its opponents, creation science meets all of the qualifications of being science and creation scientists do use the scientific method. Wikipedia's article on creation science not being science also claims that a global flood is impossible using a typical straw man argument, which claims that the flood needed to cover Mt. Everest at its current height. This claim is easily refuted when you understand the natural mechanisms and story behind the flood.