What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

All of his books stem from his interpretation of the scientific evidence. I hardly see how you would feel justified in arguing the point that he holds to his beliefs on it rather dogmatically. His atheism is interwined with evolutionary theory. Read the "Selfish Gene" for examples. I've never read anything from Bakker, but I'd willing to bet that if he's a creationist he seeks to marry his interpretation of evidence to his philosophical beliefs. Germs are no longer theoretical, Darwinian macroevolution is. That's the difference. No, not like that at all. But when I say that science is tentative, your Einstein/Newton analogy would be a good example. Then what is your objection to ID if this is its very ambition? I know. That's what I'm saying. It would surprise me very much not to find Dawkins name listed somewhere in the endnotes of any given biology textbook. Those are two books. There are hundreds of them. Furthermore, much of his work might be antiquated and new work stemming from his original thoughts have been revised. You don't get to be professor or emeritus professor of major universities without some embracing of the scientific community. Useless without specifics. Not really. And now that "Haldane's Dilemma" is addressing these issues, 7 decades may be all that has left. Junior and High school kids aren't under the general assumption that their teachers aren't knowledgeable of the cirriculum? Sometimes fantasy can become fact through the assumption that a theory was correct. Intellectual hucksters can smuggle in a ton of assertion under the guise of legitimacy so long as alot of accuracy is mingles in with fantasy. Case in point, Darwin and Mendel did us alot of good in understanding heredity. Much of what Darwin postulated was true, and in that way, the larger aspects that were hypothesized were put on the backburner. And every serious evolutionist knew of the problem in terms of hard evidence. Gould and Mayr have done more to elucidate this point better than any proponent of ID has because it comes from their own ilk. There is a stark difference between prediction and postdiction. There really aren't any true predictions that aren't fraught with ambiguous terms. It really becomes tantamount to "things change, therefore evolution is true." In essence, that doesn't predict anything. Modifications were introduced to accommodate the observations. The ToE is so malleable that virtually anything can fall into the criteria by making broad, blanket statements. (See: Punk Eek for details). What do you mean? Who are the defectors? Virtually every proponent of ID was once an evolutionist. Dean Kenyon, Colin Patterson, Walter Remine, etc I highly doubt that either of those things are increasing in popularity. If anything, it appears to diminishing ever since the X-Files was cancelled. I can't argue with you there. I don't know about that. Its probably about the same. The increase of Fundamentalism? You have it backwards. Its the increase of secularism. I'm not suggesting that evolution is not based on inference-- even good inferences. I'm suggesting that now that we have acquired a deeper sense of knowledge, the more obsolete the theory becomes. I had the image of atoms but the photo was annoyingly large so I deleted it. Not after Rutherford came along. No. Perhaps specific things about the Milky Way, but not the Milky Way itself. Your Wikipedia quote of 'theory' was perfectly fine. Evolution is a theory. We are in agreement. Well, as you know, good 'ol Ned Flanders would say, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNWR, : topic warning

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Reminder - this thread is for discussing what is science, and what is not science. It is not the place to discuss whether or not evolution has been refuted.

---

Oh dear. I see you are still labouring under the layman's misrepresentation of the term "theory". Haven't you been here long enough to know better?A theory is a hypothesis strongly supported by observation. All science is based on theories.Electromagnetism is a theory. This doesn't stop your computer from working. Gravity is also a theory. So why not jump off a tall building and see how "theoretical" (in your terminology) it actually is....

As AdminNWR has noted, this thread is for discussing the concept of "science" - the hows, whys and wherefores of the discipline. What it is, what it isn't, and related topics. Continuing to ignore administrator requests will result in an opportunity to peruse the forum guidelines at leisure - as the next person to continue the off-topic discussion from the last two pages will receive a temporary suspension.Any comments? Take them to the appropriate moderation thread.

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

I think one of the problems fundies have with the question "what is science" is that when they claim that this or that is "unscientific", they don't have the familiarity with science to make that judgement.Their hopeless confusion over the word "theory" is one symptom of this.For another example, look at nj's stuff about "direct observation". Who, please, has "directly observed" the energy of a crystal lattice? an uncollapsed waveform? the entropy of a thermodynamic system? the inverse square law? What we observe is that predictions based on such theoretical concepts are consistent with observation.This is essential to science. To adopt fundie notions of what is and isn't scientific would be to abolish science: but they are not, of course, aware of this fact.Whether they'd care if they knew is another question. Their dogma already requires them to dispose of scientific facts, laws, and disciplines by the dozen; why should they not go the whole hog?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I can't believe none of the replies pointed out that you are completely wrong in this very first assertion. Dawkins actually holds the position of Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. I'm not sure if the position you gave him even exists at Oxford.TTFN,WKP.S. I know this is still kind of off topic but like the subtitle says...

nemesis juggernaught, Dawkins has made it abundantly clear on many occasions that he would reject evolution if evidence became available.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

To see if this is a scientific hypothesis I would like Buzsaw to answer the following questions.For the purrpsoes of this post I would like to specifically consider radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology and the varve counts from Lake Suigetsu. Other dating methods, such as Luminescence dating may be considered llater.1) When do we place the Flood and how does the Flood appear in the data used in the above methods ?2) What are these conditions and how do they affect the dating methods used ?3) What reason do we have to think that these conditions applied ?4) Why do all these methods produce results which are quite strongly consistent ?
(There are some differences - which are expected - due to the production of C14 varying over time - but the results are still close enough).

Another moderator seems to be taking an interest, so I'll stop moderating and begin participating as Percy.This thread was proposed because of the creationist assertion, "My religion's beliefs are scientifically accurate."When this assertion is examined through investigation of the scientific support for such things as a young earth and a global flood there often follows a second assertion: "Creationists use a different definition of science."Until there is agreement about the nature of science there is no common basis for discussion of this thread's topic. In the hope that it will help discussion move forward, here is how scientists view science.These are its qualities:

• It applies to the natural world. This means it is limited to that which is apparent to the human senses like sight and hearing.
  ​
• It is replicable, meaning that the same experiment or observation under the same conditions will always come out the same for everyone everywhere.
  ​
• It is inductive in that it generalizes from the specific, and it can therefore be used to make predictions about not yet observed phenomena.
  ​
• It is falsifiable in that it is possible for evidence to exist that would contradict its views.

Science also has a process that is more or less followed. The path taken by original trailblazers is often chaotic, but once the path is blazed then it can be followed in a more or less straightforward fashion. The process has been described many times, but very briefly, here it is again:

1. Observe a phenomenon.
   ​
2. Form a hypothesis related to that phenomenon.
   ​
3. Develop predictions that derive from the hypothesis.
   ​
4. Perform tests of the predictions in order to confirm or falsify the hypothesis.
   ​
5. Based upon the results of those tests, either discard the hypothesis as falsified, or return to step 2 and reformulate the hypothesis, or consider the hypothesis confirmed.
   ​
6. The hypothesis is considered confirmed when it passes all the tests that have been developed for it. The hypothesis can continue to be challenged forever, but hypotheses that have stood up to many challenges are usually recognized as theories. Possession of status as theory does not protect a hypothesis from being challenged, but given the rigorous process to which it has already been subjected it does raise the bar for challenges.

The science that is taught in public school science classrooms has the listed qualities and develops from more or less following the outlined methodology. To join evolution in the classroom, creationism must either fulfill these accepted criteria of science, or it must convince scientists of a different approach to science.Any creationists who accepts the above definition of science must provide examples of creationist research following this approach. That has not yet been done in this thread, and that's because creationists do not follow this process, and it's also why creationism is not taught in school.Any creationists who reject the above definition of science must provide an alternative and equally clear definition, and provide examples of creationist research that not only follows that definition, but has also provided results that have advanced the state of the art. In other words, they have to demonstrate that they have a process that provides legitimate scientific results. Confirming Christian faith in Bible stories is not considered a legitimate scientific result.PaulK has just posted about lake varves, radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology. The answers we'll get will be the ones we always see:

• Without any evidence, it will be declared that conditions were different then with hundreds of "seasons" taking place in a single year.
  ​
• Without any evidence, radiocarbon dating will be dismissed.
  ​
• Without any argumentation, the near impossibility of multiple independent dating methods agreeing will be dismissed.

Reaching conclusions without evidence or rational argument is the hallmark of nonsense. Because creationists reach their conclusions in this way, whatever it is they're practicing IS NOT science.--Percy

But you're forgetting one thing. Science does not begin with theory. It originates from a question. From there you go to forming an hypothesis which you then begin to falsify and work with by research, observation, et al. The IDist creo scientist's hypothesis from which he begins his science is not one and the same as the hypothesis of the naturalist/secularist. Both may be observing the same data, working to falsify their hypothesis in order to work towards forming a theory.My point is that all scientists, regardless of hypothesis may (I say 'may') be doing science long before a theory is established as theory or to be recognized by peer review pertaining to any given hypothesis. My counterparts fail to recognize this fact.For example, Chris Miller, the geologist who did the science seminar at our church is working to falsify (abe: his) creo hypothesis that guppies stop variations of micromutations at a given perameter/boundary, preventing them from mutating out of the species. As I mentioned before this is an ongoing research he does in his home basement lab (abe: with hundreds of guppies). Nobody will ever convince me that this bonafide working ID creo scientist/geologist is not doing science and that what he is doing is not science, peer review or not. I don't see anything in this thread that effectively refutes that argument. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

All dogma, whether religious or not corrupts science. People can be dogmatic about anything - it's what bias is eh? Dogmatic beliefs are just as vulnerable to falsification as any scientific theory. Dogmatic belief in geocentric earth case in point. Dogmatic belief in young earth also. Fantasy within the realm of philosophical possibility is within the boundaries of reason. The philosophical structure must be logical and consistent and have some basis on {apparent reality}.There may be some if {X} is true then ... parts of the structure where {X} hasn't been tested - or isn't testable or falsifiable - and where the conclusions are tentative, the more they are based on untested or untestable conclusions the more tentative they are. You are talking about dogma again. You are also, imh(ysa)o doing so on the basis of your own dogmatic beliefs?No good scientist hails any fantasy as unassailable fact -- unless they are talking outside the realm of science and are basing it on their personal beliefs (like Dawkins and his atheism). No, science does not exclude anything outside of the natural physical world as being part of reality, just that it is outside (as you note) the ability of science to answer the questions. It's like excluding "good" and "evil" from the set of possible answers for 2+2, not 4 (which is just as much a part of the "real" set as 2 ... or any other "real" number). Creationism is based on religious dogma, and cannot escape it, therefore it is a corruption of, rather than any addition to, science. Science must be able to consider that the concept is false, and dogma doesn't allow this. ID is philosophy -- it has those "if {X} is true then ... parts of the structure where {X} hasn't been tested - or isn't testable or falsifiable - and where the conclusions are tentative" elements.For some reason though, it seems that ID proponents claim that their particular "fantasies have been hailed as some sort of unassailable fact" whenever they discuss the concepts, and I agree with you that "its important that they be examined prior to their accreditation of 'empirical science.' " -- or any science. The "impossibility" of natural "Irreducible Complexity" has been falsified: a system evolved naturally in an experiment that fits all the conditions of "irreducible complexity, yet it was a natural evolution solution. Therefore "IC" as any kind of indicator of ID is a falsified concept - and any and ALL conclusions based on "IC" are logically invalid as they have a false precept.Yet you still see proponents arguing that IC is a fact that demonstrates there is an ID system. Continuing to claim a falsified concept is true is not science, it is dogma. So will ID chose dogmatic adherence to IC or will it employ scientific abandonment of a falsified concept? This really belongs on another thread, as it will involve going over definitions and meanings and misunderstandings, but that is NOT what the quoted comment was referencing. You were claiming you could prove that mutation and natural selection could not account for the diversity of life. Or you were asserting personal dogma without any basis on fact or evidence.I was calling you on it - but you need to start a new thread on it. Sorry, but that's Hypothesis {2.1.2} -- already covered. Everything that we know by science occurs by natural laws (that MAY be in place by divine intervention) and anything that shows the hand of god has not yet been discovered. This is belief based on the LACK of knowledge, a logically invalid structure. Speciation is a fact. That is all the evidence that is necessary for the concepts discussed. LOL. No, the example was meant to be extremely simplified to show how one concept HAS to adapt when another does a better job of explaining the facts.It showed the general evolution of the weaker concept until it had adapted the strengths of the other into it and had compromised it's concept until it is impossible to differentiate them on the basis of predictions. Only then did it become equal to the other in predictive capability, ...... however for the purpose of making workable predictions it is TOTALLY unnecessary, as one can get the same results from unmodified Hypothesis {1} without any extra effort.This is where the rule of parsimony jumps in and Occam's Bloody Razor cuts out the extraneously convoluted and adapted concept in favor of the simple and practical one. And yes, it applies at this level too. The stir of a toilet flushing maybe. "Garbage in garbage out" is an old computer term - GIGO - and that is ALL that Dembski has managed so far. Yes, that is the common complaint about ID. Worse, they aren't even testing that line or trying to "bear any real fruit" -- that is NOT science. That is NOT what science is about.Meanwhile evolution has produced mutations, it has demonstrated natural selection, there are observed instances of speciation, there is documentation of daughter species that "descended" from a common ancestor species, and -- once more -- there has been an evolved IC system that shows that natural evolution process CAN "explain the evolution of certain critical features that are not functional without all its parts in place since the inception" because all one needs to do to explain it is LOOK at it happening.Meanwhile paleontology has unearthed numerous new fossils every year that show pre-adaptation of proto-features in intermediate stages of development in ancestor species to ones where the features are found more fully developed. Fossils have been found where the dinosaurs had feathers before flight, so this is no longer a prediction, but it is validated by observation and evidence.Is this "proof" of evolution? of course not - "proof" is not possible, or even necessary as long as the concept keeps producing predictable results.So far we keep finding those predictions keep happening.That is science. That is what science IS about: making predictions and then seeing if they happen.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm curious as to what the "prevailing theory of macroevolution" involves ....I'd be willing to bet that anything NJ said is was would not have anything to do with the theory or the science of evolution.It would be off-topic here however.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Though the science research applies to the natural world, it is true also that the ID creo hypothesis of the science being done may be from an IDist perspective, as is the case with Chris Miller and his guppies.

Hi PaulK. I'm afraid to answer these questions would be heading off topic and I've got my plate too full to get involved in other threads in in order to honor your request.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Well I did what nwr suggested, and looked at the first article that came up: Popper and Kuhn on the Evolution of Science (click)Charming read. (color for emphasis)(NOTE: "science and its evolutionary role" is talking about the 'evolution' of science not about the science of evolution ... )The common element involves the product of science: evidence and observations that increase the base of knowledge on which all (by definition current) theory rests.Kuhn is esentially saying that every succesful experimental prediction validates the theories ability to make succesful predictions, and that this is valid in the absence of falsification tests as an indicator of validity.This is basically arguing (if I get it right) that there are two ways to judge validity of a concept:

• falsification tests fail
• concordance of results - predictions keep happening

There is also some interesting comparison of Kuhn as "punk-eek" development of science and Popper as "gradualism" of developments.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.