Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 249 (233906)
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm not a creationist. I say that particularly to make sure it's not a school of thought that I'm attempting to get creationism more credibility, I'm not. This topic exists to answer one question I've been debating with a friend. Is Creationism Science?
Obviously creationism gets largely misrepresented by die-hard religious fanatics. The science gets lost to faith and faith isn't science. Intelligent Design is more appropriately represented as science most of the time, but even then too often people use faith and unfounded evidence as supporting facts for it, which skews the viewers outlook.
I don't want to get into the validity of creationism supporting evidence I'd just like to know if Creationism and/or Inteligent Design is Science. I believe it is because it is a theory with supporting evidence and only other theories disprove it. There are no facts to my understanding that disprove it or it wouldn't be finding its way into schools.
My belief is that it's science, albeit a bad theory.
My counter argument's belief is that it's not science at all as it doesn't have enough supporting evidence, testing, and results showing it as acceptable. I was under the impression that "amount" of supporting evidence wasn't as relevant as their being any though.
Look forward to viewing responses, thank you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by BuckeyeChris, posted 08-17-2005 12:12 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 6 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 8:02 AM Athansor has replied
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-17-2005 2:34 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 08-17-2005 3:02 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 64 by jbob77, posted 01-25-2006 1:57 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 12:43 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 121 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 8:10 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 168 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-29-2006 11:51 PM Athansor has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 249 (233908)
08-16-2005 11:57 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
BuckeyeChris
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 249 (233913)
08-17-2005 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Athansor
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


I'm the friend in question
I'm the friend in question in the OP.
My position is simply that Creationism/ID isn't science not strictly because of the lack of evidence for it, but because as a theory it doesn't make testable predictions and hence can't be falsified. In addition, anything with miracles can immediately be labeled unscientific.
However, I'm not really interested in debating him on the topic; I'm more interested in seeing what the community-at-large here has to say about it. Particularly the scientists.
Thanks all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Athansor, posted 08-16-2005 11:55 PM Athansor has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 249 (233916)
08-17-2005 12:39 AM


Creationism cannot displace evolution
There isn't a good definition of "science". There are a lot of characteristics of science, and we usually recognize good science from those.
So called scientific creationists do some empirical work. As to whether that is enough for it to qualify as a science is hard to say. But I think it doesn't really matter. Whether creationism is, or is not science, isn't the real issue.
What creationists want, is to displace evolution and to have creationism taught in its place. The important question, then, is whether there is enough science in creationism, for it to displace evolution. And I think it is quite clear that there is not.
A scientific theory is often said to be an explanation. But that's a mistake. It's on the basis of that mistake that creationists want to say that creationism is a science.
A scientific theory is, most importantly, a way of identifying and organizing data, such as will allow useful predictions. The theory of evolution does this. It allows data on morphology to be collated with data from DNA and data from fossils. It also allows the identification and collating of data from biochemistry. It is the theory of evolution that unifies the field of biology.
If creationism is ever to be a successful enough theory to displace evolution, then it would need to be at least as effective in unifying biology. Personally, I don't see how that could ever happen.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Annafan, posted 08-17-2005 5:58 AM nwr has replied
 Message 11 by Monk, posted 08-17-2005 9:52 AM nwr has replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 5 of 249 (233937)
08-17-2005 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
08-17-2005 12:39 AM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
A scientific theory is often said to be an explanation. But that's a mistake. It's on the basis of that mistake that creationists want to say that creationism is a science.
I don't think it's necessarilly bad characterisation to call science "explanation". As long as the "explanation" makes sense. And explanations only make sense when they use and combine known and well-understood facts and processes. Because obviously you can only understand an explanation if you understand the concepts that are used in it. The explained phenomenon can then become a building block itself, within future explanations.
In that sense, being an "explanation" also automatically leads to the unification you mention. It gets embedded into the total body of knowledge.
Creationist "explanations" are severely lacking in that respect. They tend to be "ad hoc" and as such they don't really offer any useful integration with existing knowledge. This lack of integration then leads to a lack of verification. There are so few dependencies that it is destined to remain shaky "knowledge".
Let's also not forget that since the answer "God" fits all questions, it could just as well not fit any at all. An answer to everything is an answer to nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 08-17-2005 12:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 08-17-2005 9:13 PM Annafan has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 6 of 249 (233959)
08-17-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Athansor
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


Sorry...but no
To me, it is quite simple. Science is a discipline that follows the steps of the scientific method. This includes the formation of hypotheses. Remember, a hypothesis is not simply a "guess" as to what you think explains the observation(s). It is a well thought out, research, plausible, and testable explanation of the observation(s). This is then followed by repeatable experimentation (the important thing here being repeatability, and the potential to falsify the hypothesis).
And with ID/creationism, we can stop right there. The idea or notion that creationism is a valid theory that can explain the diversity of life we see on this planet is absurd. Without even getting into defining what constitutes a theory, we have already knocked creationism out of the realm of science for two reasons.
1. It presents no working hypotheses.
2. As a discipline, it has never, ever, preformed any sort of repeatable experiments...none, zero, nadda, zip, zilch.
So, unless you want to radically redefine "science", creationism can never hope to be considered a valid scientific explanation of life on this planet. It fails at every level of the scientific method, beyond simple observations.
Athansor writes:
I don't want to get into the validity of creationism supporting evidence...
But you cannot have one without the other. Supporting evidence is tantamount to being scientific.
Athansor writes:
I believe it is because it is a theory
It is in no way a theory. Look, something becomes a theory only after repeated experimentation. A theory is a broad generalization of a set of ideas that have been supported by copious amounts of experimentation. Look at the ToE...it basically says that life comes from preexisting lifea broad statement about all life on this planet. However, the theory itself is based upon thousands and thousands of specific, narrowly defined, experiments from a multitude of disciplines (geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc). Creationism has yet to perform even a single experiment. So creationism is in no way a theory...it's not even close.
Athansor writes:
with supporting evidence and only other theories disprove it
What supporting evidence does it have? Honestly, I'd like to know what you perceive as "supporting evidence", because this may very well be where you are mistakenly thinking of creationism as a science.
Athansor writes:
My belief is that it's science, albeit a bad theory.
It is neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Athansor, posted 08-16-2005 11:55 PM Athansor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 9:14 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 249 (233984)
08-17-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by FliesOnly
08-17-2005 8:02 AM


I was lumping things together.
I've always lumped intelligent design in with creationism, so I guess it's two seperate issues. I could easily see creationism labeled as unscientific after checking some more resources. I did have a page that was all about supporting evidence for creationism but can't seem to find it now. (Tons of references to ring-dating/etc).
Most of what I've read these days lumps creationism and Intelligent Design into one category, but after reading about 300 pages in 6 more articles tonight it seems very important to seperate these 2 things and that certainly makes me wrong about creationism.
Intelligent Design has supporting evidence in large clumps, and they aren't just ambigous quotes from religious text. Yale recognizes the theory of intelligent design as science, so I suppose to break down the original post.
Creationism: No
Intelligent Design: Yes?
Then again, thats a topic for debate too! A lot of people consider ID pseudo-science based on metaphysical assumptions.
As for supporting evidence on Intelligent Design:
Questia
www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp
"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation."
I don't mind being wrong on both counts honestly, ignorance is curable and all that.
FliesOnly: Thanks much for the constructive reply.
edited long url to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 08-17-2005 09:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 8:02 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:26 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 08-17-2005 2:07 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 16 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 2:53 PM Athansor has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 8 of 249 (233990)
08-17-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Athansor
08-17-2005 9:14 AM


Positive evidence?
"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of [...] the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages,"
Don't you see what's wrong with that statement? How can the lack of knowledge ever be positive evidence for anything?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 9:14 AM Athansor has not replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 249 (233995)
08-17-2005 9:32 AM


Quote
Was quoting a page. If you read the thread I'm not trying to validate or invalidate Intelligent Design. I personally don't believe in creationism or Intelligent Design, I see flaws -everywhere- with both of them. I was simply trying to find out if either were considered science by literal definition.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:43 AM Athansor has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 10 of 249 (233997)
08-17-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Athansor
08-17-2005 9:32 AM


Re: Quote
Athansor writes:
I'm not trying to validate or invalidate Intelligent Design.
I know you were quoting. But you preceded it with:
quote:
Intelligent Design has supporting evidence in large clumps, and they aren't just ambigous quotes from religious text.
and
quote:
As for supporting evidence on Intelligent Design:
That last phrase was followed directly by two links and your quote. I appreciate your position, but I think, in the interest of furthering it in this thread, you should have spotted it yourself.
Anyway, I merely pointed it out as an example of the twisted logic ID-ists usually put forward. It should warn us to be wary of their "scientific" claims.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 9:32 AM Athansor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 10:00 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 11 of 249 (233998)
08-17-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
08-17-2005 12:39 AM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
But I think it doesn't really matter. Whether creationism is, or is not science, isn't the real issue.
It is very much the real issue. It is the core issue. If it can be shown through a testable hypothesis that creationism is scientific, then the scientific world would be forced to accept it using their own criteria for acceptance. Once accepted, then it can be taught as a valid scientific alternative to evolution.
What creationists want, is to displace evolution and to have creationism taught in its place. The important question, then, is whether there is enough science in creationism, for it to displace evolution.
And their best chance to displace evolution is to show it as scientific. It's not a halfway proposition, like being a little bit pregnant. Either it is or is not scientific. Since this hasn’t been shown through the scientific method, some creationist avoid this hurdle by simply ignoring it. They propagate creationism as science without a testable hypothesis.
But this assessment only applies to a segment of the creationist community who push it as science, (ID). Others are more honest and can acknowledge that creationism is not science, yet still want it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution, which is wrong. It can still be taught in schools, but not as science, perhaps as part of a comparative religion class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 08-17-2005 12:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 08-17-2005 9:18 PM Monk has replied
 Message 78 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:37 PM Monk has not replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 249 (234001)
08-17-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Parasomnium
08-17-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Quote
"but I think, in the interest of furthering it in this thread, you should have spotted it yourself."
Agreed, my apologies. On the subject of twisted logic, I read through so much of that just to find supporting evidence that actually has any real relation to the topic at all that I think my eyes are still bleeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:43 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-17-2005 10:57 AM Athansor has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 249 (234061)
08-17-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Athansor
08-17-2005 10:00 AM


Question
If the element of capriciousness in the form of God or a designer is introduced, some element that can arbitrarily change laws or effects, can any valid predictions or understanding of the world be achieved?
If some outside force can step in and say that A can become C without going through B, can any predictions be made?
Is it possible to have science where reality can be changed on the arbitrary whim of some outside force?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 10:00 AM Athansor has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 14 of 249 (234130)
08-17-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Athansor
08-17-2005 9:14 AM


Re: I was lumping things together.
Yale recognizes the theory of intelligent design as science,
This is false statement. In 2000 there was a symposium hosted at Yale. The symposium was cosponsored by Rivendell Institute for Christian Thought and Learning, the Discovery Institute, the Yale Law School Forum on Cultural and Academic Freedom, and Yale Students for Christ.
Just because a symposium is at a university does not mean that the idea is recognized by the university. Rivendell and the Discovery Insitute are hardline ID proponents. If Yale recognized this as science, wouldn't they 5 years later hve classes on it.
Please dont let them confuse you with half truths and un documented evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Athansor, posted 08-17-2005 9:14 AM Athansor has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 15 of 249 (234148)
08-17-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Athansor
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


My belief is that it's science, albeit a bad theory.
I strongly disagree. Creationism and even ID have nothing to do with real science.
This issue is mostly due to the public's misconception of the word "Theory." To the layman, a theory is simply an educated guess, or sometimes even idle speculation. In science, a theory is a well-tested and widely accepted hypothesis that meets several criteria.
Scientific theories describe a mechanism.
Evolution describes the mechanism that results in speciation - new species gradually emerging through many small changes over generations from earlier species, guided through the process of natural selection.
Creation says "Goddidit," which is obviously not a mechanism at all. A scientific theory would examine how. Creationism is, at it's heart, a statement of "we give up, we can't possibly understand." That's what "Goddidit" means. This is contrary to everything science holds true.
Scientific theories make predictions based on the mechanisms they describe.
Evolution predicts that no feature of any organism should be truly unique, but should rather be a slightly altered version of the same feature on another pre-existing species. By this prediction, every species should be transitional, and we should see things like identical organs across multiple species, vestigial organs, and slight changes between individual generations (small changes, mind, like hair color or height in humans).
Creationism makes no predictions. None at all. It simply states that God made everything the way it is, and that's that.
All scientific theories are testable and falsifiable.
Evolution's predictions could be shown to be false. Scientists examine existing species as well as the fossilized remains of now-extinct species, searching for evidence that a feature is truly unique, or an organism that doesn't seem to have anything in common with any other organism.
Creationism cannot be tested. It makes no testable predictions. God cannot be proven through natural reproducible means.
Obviously, real scientific theories like evolution match up to these criteria. Creation does not - it fails on every level. No mechanism, no predictions, no falsifiability. The Creationist argument of "you can't say it didn't happen this way!" proves, by itself, that Creationism is not science.
Further, Evolution is no longer a simple hypothesis - it's a Theory, which gives it far more credence and weight than a simple "idea" that tries to interpret something. To be considered a true Scientific Theory, a hypothesis must pass through the peer-review process, be thoroghly tested with many attempts made to falsify it, and finally become widely accepted as highly accurate by the majority of scientists. Note - I said highly accurate, not completely true. This is another way science differs from Creationism - a scientific theory never claims to be absolute immutable fact. Only observations are facts. A theory will change to match new data and more precisely describe the natural mechanism it represents. Creationism has had a set-in-stone position for a few thousand years now. Creationist apologists often try to make data match their position, rather than altering their interpretation to incorporate the new information - a practice which is anathema to the scientific method.
Intelligent Design is Creationism Lite. At least it doesn't make the claims of Creationism, or have no relation to the scientific method at all - but it's still not science.
ID takes Evolution, and sticks "Goddidit" to the end. Perhaps that's not entirely accurate - ID doesn't always involve the Judeao-Christian God. "Some-super-entity-we-cannot-see-did-it" would be more accurate. ID says that the mechanism of evolution DOES occur, but that it is the work of some grand designer who actually designed life, and humans in particular, to its specifications. There are many issue with this, but even if we disregard those (as this is not a topic about disproving ID), we can still show that ID is not science.
ID is a violation of Occam's Razor. ID takes evolution, which is wholly explainable by itself (that being the point), and adds the additional entity called the "designer." THere is no observable evidence for this entity. There is no need for it to be included in the theory. If Evolution = modern species and human origins, and if Evolution + a designer = the same modern species and human origins, then the designer = 0 and is irrelevant. Occam's Razor tells us to exclude any entity that is not strictly necessary.
Other violations of Occam's Razor would include suggesting that there are magic invisible fairies sitting on your head, laughing at you silently. There is no reason to believe those fairies exist, and no reason to add them to any description of the natural world. Note that Occam's Razor does not say that they don't exist. By itself Evolution, similarly, does not say that some designer or even God does not exist. These additional entities are simply not included because they are irrelevant.
Since ID is a violation of Occam's Razor and needlessly adds an entity to the Theory of Evolution, it is not true science. It's a belief, a form of theology or philosophy, and as such has no place in a science classroom.
I was under the impression that "amount" of supporting evidence wasn't as relevant as their being any though.
There is absolutely no evidence for Creation or ID. None whatsoever. There are mountains of evidence against them, even disregarding evolution.
But that's irrelevant to this discussion. We aren't here to prove Creation or ID wrong as those are threads by themselves. What has been shown is that neither Creationism nor ID can be defined as science.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Athansor, posted 08-16-2005 11:55 PM Athansor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Annafan, posted 08-17-2005 6:36 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 23 by BuckeyeChris, posted 08-17-2005 9:54 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-19-2005 2:21 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 90 by threepennybit, posted 06-30-2006 2:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024