Quote[/b] ]Is creationism logically consistent?
Actually, on this one creationism doesn't do too badly. I think it can be reasonably argued that creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. There are some logical holes that could be poked in the "theory" of creationism and there are contradictions at times, but those are relatively minor compared to other glaring problems.
The major problem with its logical consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries. What this means is that there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism theory. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible, and in practice the consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.
Is creationism parsimonious?
No. Creationism fails the test of Occam's razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate explanation, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.
Unfortunately, such reasons are not forthcoming in creationism when it comes to the inclusion of God and miraculous, divine intervention into events in the world. Creationists use these as explanations for why the world is the way it is, but the only reason they provide for thinking this is the case is the Bible, and a religious text cannot be used as the basis for scientific conclusions.
Is creationism useful?
The characteristic of "useful" in science means that a theory is able to explain and describe natural phenomena. Unfortunately, creationism is not really able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are somehow limited to microevolution within species and are prevented from becoming macroevolution.
Even more interesting is the question of Flood Geology, one area where creationists try to argue that they are able to explain the data. According to creationists, we would expect to see the particular fossil order we find based upon the order in which animals would have been killed by the Flood. This isn't an unreasonable explanation, except for one thing: it violates creationists' own premise that unless you can empirically observe and test something, it isn't science. Because of this, creationists have to dismiss their own "explanation" as "shameful speculation," to use the words of creationists George McCready Price.
Is creationism empirically testable? No, creationism is not empirically testable. This stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Because creationism relies on supernatural entities, not only is it not testable, it is not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, it does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider "God did it" to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.
Because we can only test that which is part of the natural world, a theory that specifies non-natural phenomena can not be tested. There is no way to empirically verify or falsify creationism. Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit this in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:
We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.
Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:
We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and "verification") of their ideas.
Is creationism correctable?
No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.
Is creationism progressive?
This is somewhat open to interpretation. In a sense it could be considered progressive since you can now say "God did it" to explain all previous data as well as any previously unexplainable data. However, this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
Given its dismal performance in meeting the criteria for scientific theories, it should be quite clear that creationism is not a scientific theory. The U.S. courts, thankfully, have been unanimous in recognizing this fact. This is further made evident when we consider its methodology.
Does creationism follow the scientific method? No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Moreover, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.