The premise of Ruses argument lies, within what he deems as the true laws of science. Ruse (Summer 1982, p.73) conveys that explanation, prediction, testability and the scientists ability to be tentative are the foundations of science. He like Popper agrees, A body of science must be falsifiable (Ruse Summer1982, p.73). It is evidently clear, that creation science does not adhere to these natural laws presented by Ruse. Creation science as the name suggests demarcates between what is broken and unbroken law. It follows a set of principles, which deviate from the known laws, the belief in the power of miracles and the sudden creation of the universe (Ruse Summer 1982 p.73). .
Realistically there is no law that exists for creation science, science cannot test supernatural possibilities (Cicerone et al 2008, p.39) hence explanations and predictions are fruitless. How is it possible for one to account for the existence of a divine power, or rather attempt to explain various events in history for instance the flood? All they can provide is evidence from their scared texts. Unlike evolution, even though completely radical, is realistic, as Darwin was able to provide sound explanations and predictions about the origins of life in accordance to our common ancestor (Cicerone et al 2008, p.24). He made numerous attempts to study fossils of extinct apes comparing it to the human skeletal anatomy. He thus, was able to conclude, through fossils, migration and behavior, the close proximity of both organisms. Here it is clear that evolution becomes a science as it adheres to natural laws of science. .
Creation science did not satisfy the laws of explanation and prediction but also failed in testability and falsifiability. It is impossible to create genuine tests for creationism, and thus as Ruse explains within the trial, they began arguing about the errors of evolution rather than by showing that creation science was right.
