Gentry's hypothesis quickly runs into trouble with all of the accumulated evidence from many fields of earth science pointing conclusively to a great age for the Earth. Not the least of these evidences is radiometric age dating.
Gentry used science. He is not using a hypothesis. The evolutionist is using philosophy. The long ages is an assumption suported by other assumptions that the earth is old.
Hypothesis: A testable and potentially falsifiable explanation which includes some way to determine whether it is inaccurate or incomplete. Its not 'blind speculation'.
Theory: (1) An explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: Why �matter attracts matter� is a theory of gravity. (2) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. It is not conjecture!
Science: An objective method of measurably or verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature in practical application, or mathematics, or through experimentation and observation, by proposing falsifiable hypotheses explaining the facts in a theoretical framework to be subjected to a perpetual battery of critical analysis in peer review. It is not "a conspiracy against God."
[biological] Evolution: An explanation of biodiversity through population mechanics, summarily defined as �descent with inherent genetic modification�: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets, which �when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. It is not "How life began without God." It�s not "how life began" at all, and it certainly isn't 'anti-god'. Neither does it have anything to do with the origin of the universe. It�s simply how generations of branching lineages change and diversify over time; that's all!
The definitions and comentary above are quotes from AronRa who phrased them better than I could.
Gentry cooks up a hypothesis that predicts that the earth is still molten and requires multiple divine interventions changing the basic laws of nuclear physics to account for the state of the earth as we see it, and he is doing science? If Gentry's work can be classified as science then so can any other suprenatural explanation for anything. "The accumulated evidence from many fields of earth science pointing conclusively to a great age for the Earth" is philosophy? Better check that definition of science. Since I used the word "law" in the scientific sense I better put in another definition.
Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That �matter attracts matter� is a law of gravity. - AronRa
Seems like anyone who's results agree with your assumption of a supernatural creator is doing science and anyone using "an objective method of measurably of verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature" is using philosophy.
One unerring mark of the love of the truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. John Locke, 1690
