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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the difference between Science and ID or Biblical Creationism
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 4 (420332)
09-07-2007 1:17 PM


In the thread Message 1 the subject of the Periodic Table came up and I responded in Message 143 but realized that was really offtopic for the thread.
I think that it is an important issue though and one that highlights the difference between Science, specifically the TOE, and either ID or Biblical Creationism.
The importance of Mendeleev's Periodic Table (it was not the first and actually others were working on the same concepts he presented at the time, similar to what happened with Darwin) but it was unique because it not only explained what we did see but also made concrete predictions about what would be discovered including revisions to the then current body of scientific knowledge.
I believe this is a hallmark example of the difference between science and pseudo sciences like ID or Biblical Creationism.
As I said in the other post:
I found it interesting that you brought up the Periodic Table, because it is a classic example of how science does work and why the Scientific Method (TOE) is far more likely to be right than ID or Biblical Creationism.
The important thing about Mendeleev's Table was that it had gaps and reordered many of the placements of elements in earlier attempts at creating a table. He took another series of steps based on the reasoning behind his arrangement and predicted two things; that when the elements he reordered were examined with greater precision the then accepted atomic weights for those elements would be found to be wrong; and that elements would be found to fill in his blanks and even what the properties of each of those elements would be.
I cannot overstate the importance of those actions. He presented a model that explained what was already known, and was also useful for making predictions about what would be learned in the future. In addition, as more was learned we found that the new elements discovered were exactly as he predicted and that the atomic weights of those he rearranged were as he predicted.
His model explained what was seen as well as what would be discovered. It went even further and provided the basis for us to create NEW elements, ones not found on earth, with a high degree of confidence of what their properties would be even before we created them.
The Periodic Table is a great example of why the TOE is valuable and ID and Biblical Creationism are worthless.
The value of the TOE has been in helping us understand what is seen, but in also providing the basis for future discoveries. What we have learned from the TOE has let us make predictions, and so far those predictions have been born out by each new discovery.
ID and Biblical Creationism have no predictive potential. There is nothing there to form our basis. A good example is in ID. When based on the evidence seen in living things it is pointed out that the I in ID should stand for Inept or Incompetent or Inelegant or Inscrutable or Ignorant we are told that we cannot know the Intent of the Designer. Well sorry, if we cannot know the Intent of the Designer then we cannot predict what the Designer will do. If that is the case then the ID concept is worthless.
The same argument is applicable to Biblical Creationism. The two (actually they are really just one) schools of thought are simply worthless.
To understand just how important this was, remember that this was presented before we had any understanding of what atoms were made of. We knew nothing about electrons or protons or neutrons. In addition, he made several important predictions. His table had gaps and he predicted that when elements were discovered that those elements would have specific properties that would be similar to the others listed adjacent to them. For example, at the time elements were arranged based on atomic masses. Using Atomic mass Iodine came before Tellurium but he changed the order and placed Iodine later because its characteristics more closely resembled those of fluorine, chlorine and bromine while Tellurium was more closely related to oxygen, sulfur and selenium. He predicted that once we learned more of how elements were made we would find that that would be correct.
Once we learned about the composition of atoms we found that Atomic Weight, not Atomic Mass was the key and that using Atomic Weight the elements lined up just as predicted by Mendeleev.
The same can be said about the TOE. When it was first proposed by Darwin (and others), we had no knowledge of genetics or exactly what the "unit of transmission" would be. However, from the TOE it was possible to predict that there would be a direct correlation between NEW evidence (genetics) and the original theory presented by Darwin.
Guess what.
New evidence has continued to support and confirm the predictions.
The question is, what predictive qualities of either ID or Biblical Creationism stand out as examples of prediction in the same manner as Mendeleev's Periodic Table allowed predictions of the characteristics of both known and yet to be discovered elements?
Edited by jar, : Per AdminNosy suggestion

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-07-2007 1:20 PM jar has replied

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


Message 2 of 4 (420334)
09-07-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
09-07-2007 1:17 PM


Bring it all over
I know you linked to the original but I think it would get this thread started off even better if you brought it all over. Even expanded on the nature of the predictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 09-07-2007 1:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 09-07-2007 1:52 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 3 of 4 (420339)
09-07-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
09-07-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Bring it all over
revised per your suggestions

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-07-2007 1:20 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 4 of 4 (420341)
09-07-2007 1:53 PM


Thread copied to the On the difference between Science and ID or Biblical Creationism thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024