ok, i see. Making unreasoned assertions, and be willfullingly ignorant. Thats also a way to ignore God.

Saying we don’t know when we don’t know is called being honest. I can no more ignore God than I can ignore the invisible man.

there is no creationist science. There is just the interpretation of science which leads to creationism as the best answer of given phenomena discovered through science.

I will paraphrase you in reply: ok i see, Making unreasoned assertions, and being willfully ignorant. That’s also the way to avoid the fact you don’t know.

peer reviewed scientific facts should leave the philosophic implications open to anyone that wants to draw own conclusions, either to creationism, or to naturalism.

Yes, as long as those interpretations don’t depend on misrepresenting scientific facts. And even then they are far from the certainty you proclaim. They often lead to further experimental models which are then rigorously tested in an attempt to disprove them. Just what does ‘God dunnit’ explain anyway? What created God?

Dr. Werner Gitt and In the Beginning was Information

Understanding that information theory has a relationship to genetics and evolution, creationists have used the language of information theory in an attempt to discredit evolution. Dr. Werner Gitt published a monograph In the Beginning was Information[11] that creationists invariably refer to when arguing about information theory and evolution. Gitt’s book is problematic in its structure and in its assertions about information theory.

Gitt separates the scientific version of information from other types. He singles out Shannon information as “statistical” and then partitions information into syntax, semantic (or “meaningful”) information, pragmatic information, and apobetics. In doing so, he makes a number of claims about how genetics works. The text develops a number of statements which Gitt numbers as “theorems”, as if the text were a mathematics textbook, and claims “[this] series of theorems which should also be regarded as laws of nature, although they are not of a physical or a chemical nature.”

This form of argument is problematic on multiple accounts. First, theorems are usually mathematical statements based on postulates and definitions and take the form of propositional logic to prove such statements. Gitt does not state his assumptions and leaves many terms undefined. More problematically, the theorems themselves are not mathematical statements; his theorems are actually assertions. (His binning of Shannon information as statistical and the “lowest level” of information indicates Gitt’s disdain for mathematics.) Second, theorems are the result of deductive logic, while scientific laws are the result of inductive logic based on observation. The two cannot be equated. Gitt does not refer to any observation in the development of his theorems, and hence, by definition they are not laws.[12] It is unclear how to make statements about the natural world without any observation to support it. Third, as will be described below, it is an untestable model and hence cannot be deemed valid or invalid.

In essence, Gitt uses the language of mathematics and science, but does not perform a mathematical proof or employ the scientific method. Instead, he makes a number of assertions that cannot be validated, and Gitt’s text is a poorly constructed rhetorical argument, not a scientific one.

Again what exactly is explained by God?