Creation to be scientifically tested

The Christian Examiner brings us an article about how creation science is poised to become a regular respectable science: Creation will be viable science as believers develop testable models. It's written by none other than Hugh Ross, whom I have met before.

Apparently Ross and his coworkers have developed a method that will convince scientists of the reality of creation.

The boldness of my proposal springs not from naïve wishful thinking but rather from personal experience—as a scientist and as an evangelist. For more than 20 years, my colleagues and I have been developing a radically different tactic to counter barriers to belief in creation. This strategy is not new. We simply returned to the biblically derived scientific method, the same one that sparked the scientific revolution.

Fascinating! What is the method?

Applying that method to the rapidly emerging discoveries in both the physical and life sciences has brought forth an astounding weight of evidence in favor of biblical creation. In an open and free competition of ideas, that evidence—and the model that it informs—makes an impact even in the context of major secular universities. We have been allowed to present it and have received valuable feedback in the process.

Okay, that's great. Lots of evidence. But how? Tell us about the method.

Any creation model must explain in as detailed a manner as possible the origin and entire history of the universe, Earth, and Earth’s life. Recognizing that evolutionists will not abandon one model until they see a more useful one, we endeavor to show how biblical creation indeed provides a better explanation, one that’s more detailed and comprehensive in elucidating the record of nature and in forecasting future research findings.

Got it! Now, tell me how, pleeeeease! Sugar on top.

The process of model building is ongoing, but as my friends and I have discovered, by actively exposing our biblically based creation-model-in-progress to the comment and critique of non-theistic and agnostic science professors, we have earned their respect and provoked their interest. Future experiments and observations will further test our models—or any models—conclusions and predictions, either confirming them or denying them. But no Christian ever needs to be afraid of the truth found in nature.

You sure don't look like you're afraid of the truth, even if it should not support creation, no sir! But wait, what is that model again? Here's the last paragraph:

By displaying a fearless yet humble commitment to follow the truth wherever it leads, Christians can open conversations that lead, ultimately, to conversions. At the very least we can win the respect of those who oppose our views, and that’s one way we can honor our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hold on! Did I miss the part where he explains what the model is? Actually, perhaps I did. I am not really sure. Could anyone please help me out?

Perhaps this is it, from a paragraph prior to the ones I just quoted:

When creationists propose specific details of what took place “in the beginning,” creation can be scientifically tested. By providing the means to either verify or falsify (through observations and experiments) creation, we can effectively demonstrate that “creation is science.”

If I am right, then the model is to make predictions based on the Bible that can be tested. That does really qualify as science. That would be great! I do wonder if Ross et al. would be as willing as he says to accept the conclusion that creation is false. I can't wait to see what happens...