What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

While this is true, I was hoping I could encourage buz to realize that what has been going on is realistic and fair. I guess I am an eternal optimist (and not so realistic) that this kind of realization is possible. Between your and Percy's posts (both of which I nominated for POTM) I believe the general question of what is science has been adequately answered. But I thought that if buz (or other creos) still believe they have examples which count as science, and they are willing to listen to explanations on failures, this thread could still help them understand what particular cases are not science, and so see the criteria put forward applied specifically.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well said. And there's an inherent contradiction in their position where they want to be classified as science while satisfying few of the requirements of science. They've created the external trappings of science with their journals and conferences and websites, but they rarely actually *do* science.This thread is too near the end to actually begin a detailed examination of an example of creationist research, but I still think it would be a good idea. Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying a good candidate. I'll try to get over to ICR when I find a free hour.--Percy

Well I do admire your optimism (and greatly appreciate your nomination)
I think it unlikely that, having defined fairly thoroughly what science is, many creationists will step forwards to test their theories against these criteria.
More likely they will take Buz's general view that the rules have been set unfairly against them by the opposition with no real appreciation that it is this that is at the very heart of the problem.The rules of science ARE against their methods and means of research. However it is these same "rules" that define what science is and what have made it so effective and successful in terms of practical results.Maybe I am just being overly pessimistic............One last thought (unless there are a flood of creationists queuing up to test their theories against the criteria in this thread?) - It really did seem much more difficult to define what science actually is than I think most of us anticipated. It is much easier to explain what is not science than to formally define what science is in any exact way. Is sociology science? Is psychology? Are either of these "as scientific" as say physics or chemistry? Maybe I should open another thread..........Enough. I digress.

I'd strongly suggest looking for work by Kurt Wise - he's as well qualified as any creationist and seems to be more honest than most.

1. Only one hypothesis is acceptable to EvC science, that of The E in EvC, allowing the C of EvC no hypothesis from which to interpret the evidence observed.2. Evo assumes the level of inteligence here on this speck of a planet in the whole universe as the only possible intelligence in the universe, totally ignoring and rejecting evidence creos incorporate in their hypothesis upon which alternative interpretation may be based. Throughout the thread I have given examples of this which has been ignored or passed over by my counterparts.3. Evo's tyrannical and oppressive hold on the science agenda including their own narrow view of the definition of science, rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views, has given them the bully pulpit so as to silence all other views than their own in education, in journals, in the media and in forums like EvC.4. The atmosphere from which I have been debating here in this thread has been both demanding and unfriendly for the most part with moderation skewed to favor the majority viewpoint for much of the thread. This becomes wearisome and depressing after so much of it so as to render each loggin as another unpleasant experience. EvC is becoming ever more hostile, exclusive and condescending to objective debate on the issues.5. My counterparts who reject the ICR research project which I have cited as as well as ICR Grand Canyon projects as non-science show that their collective biased chorus of self gratification for their own pet agenda prevails, leaving any creo debate as a waste of time and effort.

---

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

Wow!That's a huge misunderstanding of how science works. Science does not dream up some imaginative fairy tale in order to interpret the evidence. The interpretation is largely forced on science by the nature of the evidence. And that does not mean science can't get it wrong. It often gets it a little bit wrong, and has to correct its theories as more evidence comes in.Keep in mind that modern geology started with scientists who were assuming flood geology as their working hypothesis, until the evidence clearly made the flood hypothesis untenable. There is no such assumption. Most scientists will openly admit that "intelligent" is a poorly understood term. There is no tyrannical and oppressive hold. If you prefer a broader view of science, broad enough to include astrology (as Behe admitted would be required to count ID as science), then you can find it all around. Every major newspaper has astrology charts. I can look up astrologers in my local phone directory.The problem for astrology, is that it doesn't work. That's the same problem that creationism has. If you can show us some good creation science that actually works, bring it on. Scientists are, for the most part, down-to-earth pragmatists. They will go with what works, whether or not it fits any preconceived definition of science.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

quote:

---

1. Only one hypothesis is acceptable to EvC science, that of The E in EvC, allowing the C of EvC no hypothesis from which to interpret the evidence observed.

---

By which you mean that falsely labelling your religious dogma a hypothesis it should be accepted as scientific - even though it is not tested and will not be rejected no matter what the evidence shows.

quote:

---

2. Evo assumes the level of inteligence here on this speck of a planet in the whole universe as the only possible intelligence in the universe, totally ignoring and rejecting evidence creos incorporate in their hypothesis upon which alternative interpretation may be based. Throughout the thread I have given examples of this which has been ignored or passed over by my counterparts.

---

This is utterly false. Evolutionists DO accpet the possibility of intelligence elsewhere - but it is not treated as relevant to the history of life on earth because the evidence for it is simply not adequate.

quote:

---

3. Evo's tyrannical and oppressive hold on the science agenda including their own narrow view of the definition of science, rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views, has given them the bully pulpit so as to silence all other views than their own in education, in journals, in the media and in forums like EvC.

---

I note that the chosen dictionary was close to 100 years old and did not reflect modern usage. So this claim is also false. What you mean is that creationists seek to redefine "science" to include their religious apologetics - but evolutionists stick with current usage. It is the creationists who want to play definitions game to falsely claim the prestige that real science has earned.

quote:

---

4. The atmosphere from which I have been debating here in this thread has been both demanding and unfriendly for the most part with moderation skewed to favor the majority viewpoint for much of the thread. This becomes wearisome and depressing after so much of it so as to render each loggin as another unpleasant experience. EvC is becoming ever more hostile, exclusive and condescending to objective debate on the issues.

---

There's plenty of hostility from your own posts. And your misrepresentations have not helped. Nor have your unsubstantiated attacks on the moderation. And to suggest that favouring objective truth over your subjective opinions impedes "objective debate" is ludicrous.

quote:

---

5. My counterparts who reject the ICR research project which I have cited as as well as ICR Grand Canyon projects as non-science show that their collective biased chorus of self gratification for their own pet agenda prevails, leaving any creo debate as a waste of time and effort

---

The study referred to involved either hopeless incompetence - or more likely outright dishonesty. To accept it as real science would be foolish in the extreme. The date produced was the date that the method should have produced if it were working correctly. To trumpet that as evidence that it doesn't work - especially given the likelihood that the result was intentional - is not in the least scientific.

What are trying for here? Pity? Empathy? Or are you just plain mad? Percy would die if this happened. The moment you can actually do creationsim as real science, you can talk about it all you want, consider it all you want, support it all you want. But that's the caveat--you have to do it by science's way. I wonder why this is so? That intelleigent entity you speak of isn't testable. We accept the possibility for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. What we don't accept, on a scientific basis, is that there is a God behind all this (the "other intelligence considered by creos" part of the last quote). Why? You cannot scientifically test God. He isn't part of the natural world, you know, that realm in which only the physical happens. I might want to remind you, that at least historically, the method behind science came about before this debate, and it shoots down astrology, cosmology, phrenology, and a bunch of other psuedo-sciences. Now then, tell me, which is more scientific--astronomy or astrology? If science wasn't based on methodological naturalism (which, by the way, doesn't preclude the non-existance of God. it just leaves the question open) and the scientific method, you would have to not only include creationism (and it's cousins of YEC, OEC, ID), but also astrology, cosmology, and phrenology.As to other parts of that quote, such as "rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views". You better believe we do that. Tell me, which "theory" defintion should science use? The collogquial, or the scientific? You are asking science to use the colloquial defintions to do science. Words have different meanings for a reason. Do you engineers get to define the words the use in their field? Do theologists? Why not scientists? And what's the point of having a science (which is supposed to find out how things work through physical means) if any explanation will work? There won't be any moving forward.Science depends on this narrow defintion to move forward. If you allow all views to be acceptable, then I can explain A with B, and you can explain A with C, and Percy can explain A with D, and all of them are valid. And then, when trying to apply A to the real world, we're screwed. It's like allowing christian theology to allow all views to be acceptable. Now then, clearly Judaism is not christianity, right? But if I turn the tables on you, and ask you to make it so that christian theology accepts all views, well, Judaism must be accepted as christianity. So what if science, in this instance, is highly bigoted. It has to be to succeed in its stated aim of finding out how and why things happen through physical means. oh boo-hoo. you're appeal to pity here ain't gonna work. hell, you think this place is tough. Don't you realize that scientists tear each other up in the same way? When you bring forth a position, and it gets refuted, and then bring it up again, and it's refuted a second time, and you just keep on bringing it up and up and up, ad infinitum, well, of course we're gonna get peaved. Just like if I kept on bringing up my picture of christianity, and it keeps on getting refuted by you, and yet I don't listen, and bring it up time and time again, you'd get just as peaved, wouldn't you?We've explained to you just what science is, the methodology and the philosophical foundation, and why it has to be like this. And yet, you ignore it and bring up the same shit over and over. Naturally, we get peaved. Once a point is refuted, unless you've got new evidence that undoes the refutation, drop the point. you are a master of self-pity, aren't you? You're only upset that what you brought to the fight wasn't good enough, so now you're running to mommy screaming "they fit me, they fit me, it hurts so bad" (and crying at the same time). Or, you're the kid whose claiming that the other side used unfair measures to win, when in all reality, you didn't have what it took to win. Get over it, pick youself back up, and actually build up your case.You're right about the "pet agenda", though. Of course, not in the way you're thinking. The purpose of this site, is education. Educating creationists in just what science is.In the end, you lost this debate. You promised to bring forth a creationist doing real science trying to support creationism. You're two examples failed miserably. The first, Chris Miller (I think that's the name) wasn't even doing science--his guppy thing was on off the side hobby. Now, his geology work might count as science, except he's doing it in the service of New York state--which means he's using mainstream, scientifically accepted, geology. Not geology attempting to support creationism. The second example, the ICR guy, was doing false science the moment he omitted any data that would screw up his conclusion--that radiometric dating is false.And now that you've lost, you've become the kid crying about how "unfair" it all is. (sorry if this seems harsh, admins and buz. there's a certain point in me, and those last two statements by buz broke them. I think they're an accurate portrayal of what's happening, but . . .)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I have been following this thread all the way through and this claim (highlighted section)still makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I figured I would go and look up some web definitions of science myself to see if the argument holds any water.
here is what I found on a quick google of "Science definition".First result.
Space, Time and Big Bang | Journaloftheoretics.com

quote:

---

It continues to amaze me how many "educated" people do not understand what Science* is or what is meant by the term "scientific method." The statements of Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman1 shows that such ignorance shows no regard for academic stature when he states, "No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method." What arrogance!2

​

One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs' website .3

​

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

---

The author recognises this as the "accepted" definition of science.
He does, however, go on to propose that this is not entirely valid and needs to be modified.Second result.
Atheism and Agnosticism
Doesn't really explain anything at all. It actually claims that science is impossible to define, then goes on to say a whole bunch of "nothing" on the subject.
Then again the site is focussing on the "philosophy" of science rather then the definition of it.Third result.
Science - Wikipedia

quote:

---

in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on the meaning of science in the latter sense.

---

This really is in complete agreement with what I have always considered science to be.Every definition that I can find comes down to the same or very similar things. As long as we aren't talking about "science" as simply a pseudonym for "knowledge", there is no escaping the fact that "doing" science refers to following the scientific method and that is a pretty well defined pathway to follow.I still don't see any problem here.

Others have already adequately addressed your points, but I think they are mostly a digression from the topic. If you'd like to continue to pursue the question posed by the thread's title then please propose a paper from ICR or CRS. I'll propose one myself if I can find an open slot of time to poke around at their websites.I think it would be a good idea to examine a specific paper because I interpreted you as disagreeing with statements that the creationist position is not based upon evidence, and what better way for you to demonstrate the falseness of these claims than to examine some creationist papers and show that they don't ignore evidence. But if your actual point was that science should not be based upon evidence then we should probably discuss the definition of science some more.--Percy

Buz, I think your charges are unfair and unwarranted. If you don't like how some people post then you should ignore them. Modern scientific methodologies were in place before evolutionary theory came about. Geological tenets, which created the background for deep time which was necessary for evolution, were discovered/founded by people that believed in the Bible and were not inherently opposed to the Flood.I don't understand why you will not admit or accept this truth. You are correct that there is a broad definition, a more archaic definition, under which some ID and creo research may be called science. But you have yet to explain why it was inappropriate for the definition to have changed/narrowed before evolutionary theory emerged.And you do not explain why ID/creos cannot change their methods to work within the modern methods and so definition of science?I realize that it will make work a bit harder, and at the outset most of the models are in challenge. But if they are right, why can they not use a tighter methodology? It would all come out in the end... right? If not, why not?Finally, I am sad that you are not taking the time to address valid issues which have been presented to you on the specific examples. Your own source, Miller, has written to counter your original claim. This cannot be an evolutionist problem. Why not swallow your pride and deal with the ramifications openly?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Below is a list of some ICR research papers. I looked at the Vapor canopy one and the Grand Canyon one and though these allow for some ID I see no deficiency of science or any steps of science as per the definition of science in them. Any given paper would be too lengthy to post or to discuss in this thread but access to any of them are here for anyone to study. The people doing these are bonafide scientists doing science and for the you all to blatantly allege that there's no ID or creo science, imo shows gross bias on your parts.International Conference on Creationism 2003 PapersCurrently Only Available in Adobe PDF Format.
TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR AN OPTIMIZED WATER VAPOR CANOPY - Vardiman
(346KB)
HYPERCANES FOLLOWING THE GENESIS FLOOD - Vardiman
(1MB)
THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING - Snelling
(1MB)
WHOLE-ROCK K-Ar MODEL AND ISOCHRON, AND Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOCHRON, "DATING" OF THE SOMERSET DAM LAYERED MAFIC INTRUSION, AUSTRALIA - Snelling
(1.4MB)
ACCELERATED DECAY: THEORETICAL MODELS - Chaffin
(372KB)
HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY - Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, Snelling
(1.1MB)
- ICC Powerpoint Presentation
(2.4MB)
RADIOISOTOPES IN THE DIABASE SILL (UPPER PRECAMBRIAN) AT BASS RAPIDS, GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA: AN APPLICATION AND TEST OF THE ISOCHRON DATING METHOD - Austin, Snelling, Hoesch
(1.1MB)
RADIOHALOS ” A TALE OF THREE GRANITIC PLUTONS - Snelling, Armitage
(869KB)
MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL - Baumgardner, Austin, Humphreys, Snelling
(579KB)
RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH - Vardiman, Austin, Baumgardner, Chaffin, DeYoung, Humphreys, Snelling
(688KB)
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD - Baumgardner
(2.2MB)
RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference - Vardiman
Complex Life Cycles in Heterophyid Trematodes: Structural and Developmental Design in the Ascocotyle Complex of Species - Armitage
Earthquakes and the End Times: A Geological and Biblical Perspective - Austin, Strauss
The Tunguska Explosion of 1908 - Austin, Brazo
Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens - Austin
Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano - Austin
Evidences for Rapid Formation and Failure of Pleistocene "Lava Dams" of the Western Grand Canyon, Arizona - Austin, Rugg
Discordant Potassium-Argon Isochron "Ages" For Cardenas Basalt (Middle Protozoic) And Associated Diabase Of Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona - Austin, Snelling
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History - Austin, Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling, Vardiman, Wise
Computer Modeling of the Large-scale Tectonics Associated With the Genesis Flood - Baumgardner
Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood - Baumgardner
Patterns of Ocean Circulation Over the Continents During Noah's Flood - Baumgardner, Barnette
Toward the Development of an Instrument for Measuring a Christian Creationist Worldview - Deckard, Sobko
The Current State of Creationist Astronomy - Faulkner
Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views - Overman
Submarine Flow and Slide Deposits in the Kingston Peak Formation, Kingston Range, Mojave Desert, California: Evidence for Catastrophic Initiation of Noah's Flood - Sigler, Wingerden
The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" For Recent Andesite Flows At Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, And The Implications For Potassium-Argon "Dating" - Snelling
U-Th-Pb Dating: An Example of False Isochrons - Snelling
Regional Metamorphism within A Creationist Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal - Snelling
The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on A Young Earth - Snelling, Woodmorappe
The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation - Vardiman
Rapid Changes in Oxygen Isotope Content of Ice Cores Caused by Fractionation and Trajectory Dispersion near the Edge of an Ice Shelf - Vardiman
Newton's Approach to Science: Honoring Scripture - Vardiman
Numerical Simulation of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges - Vardiman
Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles - Vardiman, Bousselot
Back to top
Non-Research Related Papers
Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate Baumgardner
Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR A&F
Back to top
Research Papers IndexResearch Papers - Institute for Creation ResearchNon-Research Related Papers. Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate Baumgardner · Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR A&F. Back to top ...
Research Papers | The Institute for Creation Research - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research ]

---

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

TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR AN OPTIMIZED WATER VAPOR CANOPY - Vardiman
(346KB)In this paper the author states that if the solar constant was less than 25% of today's value the surface temperature under a vapor canopy would be livable. What does the author propose would cause this lowered solar constant?:
1. God - an entity for which we have no emperical evidence
2. A greater distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
3. A greater concentation of dust between the earth and the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
4. The sun reflecting off of the top of the alleged vapor canopy - a situation for which we have no empirical evidenceyup lots of good science in that one.edited to add:
The Tunguska Explosion of 1908 - Austin, Brazo
I don't see any science in this one, it's just a summation of other's theories. edited: I don't even see how it's relevant to the Creationism/Evolution debate.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Buz there is a heck of a lot of material here. This would be a lot easier if you would pick an example that you think is the best of the bunch in terms of meeting the criteria for scientific research that have been established earlier in this thread. Would that be possible?
Also before we continue can we ascertain whether or not you do actually accept the crieria that have been established earlier? Otherwise there is little point in going through the whole process again with yet another specific example.
Unless we are all talking the same language so to speak, it will inevitably result in bad feeling and frustration so I suggest we verify the criteria on which we are assessing these examples properly beforehand.More generally - I know it can get quite exhausting when each posting you make results in a flood of replies each pulling it apart in various ways. I will bear this in mind and try and stick to the main points in any further discussion rather than trying to address everything at once.Look forward to your chosen example.

Hi Dr. Jones:Evo says: 1. God - an entity for which we have no emperical evidence
Creo counters: BB singularity - an event for which we have no emperical evidence.Evo says: 2. A greater distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: Uniformitarian distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence.Evo says: 3. A greater concentation of dust between the earth and the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: One of several possibilities, possibility models and senarios being sometimes factored into evo science methodology in consideration of science hypotheses as well.Evo says: 4. The sun reflecting off of the top of the alleged vapor canopy - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
Creo counters: Uniformitarian atmosphere - a situation for which we have no empirical evidenceEvo says: yup lots of good science in that one.
Creo counters: yup lots of good science in both science hypotheses being researched. 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