While no consensus exists among philosophers of science on a definition and paradigm for the “Scientific Method,” certain principles and methods of inquiry are nearly universal among working scientists and constitute a minimum framework for the concept. These include: the use of logic and Occam's Razor, objectivity, a positive approach to knowledge (i.e. that the universe is knowable and the knowledge should be obtained), and at least implicit application of the hypothesis/theory/law/fact hierarchy of generalization. Investigations of natural phenomena within these parameters may be termed “scientific” and, conversely, the circumvention of even one essential principle should remove the cachet of “Science.”

A sample of “Creation Science” literature is examined to determine whether it adheres to the minimum “Scientific Method” described. Examination reveals that, indeed, all of the enumerated criteria are violated. Objectivity and the positive approach to knowledge are flouted overtly in several documents, whereas logical fallacies, violations of Occam's Razor, and misapplications of the heirarchy of generalization are rampant among (and intrinsic to) “Creationist” arguments, but typically must be ferreted out. Most distressful logical fallacies are non-factual statements, false assumptions, anachronisms, and a set of novel errors which may be termed “apparent scientism” (e.g. the citation of nonrefereed polemical writings, using conventional journal format). It is concluded that the methodological bankruptcy evidenced in materials examined removes the philosophy espoused from “Science” and leaves only the “Creationist” component.