Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 301 of 304 (358993)
10-26-2006 11:29 AM


Hi Buzsaw:
As Holmes has already pointed out to you, the "definition" we use is not new. No one here has redefined science to exclude creationism or Intelligent Design. Nope, we don't need to because both of these ideas fail to meet the requirements of being scientific solely based on their own methodology.
Look, here are three statements from the latest paper you claimed as an example of creationists conducting valid scientific research (which I found at the following link: ICR | The Institute for Creation Research)
Creationist Research Paper writes:
1. Second, we believe that the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic -- most probably basaltic. Once again three reasons exist for this inference: 1) Pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood; 2) If, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and 3) If, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our flood model...
2. We feel that the Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. We are, however, not ready at this time to speculate on what event or events might have initiated that subduction...
3. Post-Flood Geology
After the global effects of the Flood ended, the earth continued to experience several hundred years of residual catastrophism [7]. A cooling lithosphere is likely to have produced a pattern of decreasing incidence [68] and intensity of volcanism (such as appears to be evidenced in Cenozoic sialic volcanism in the Western United States [77]). The large changes in crustal thicknesses produced during the Flood left the earth in isostatic disequilibrium. lsostatic readjustments with their associated intense mountain uplift, earthquake, and volcanic activity would have occurred for hundreds of years after the global affects of the Flood ended (e.g. [83]). In fact, considering the current nature of the mantle, there has not been sufficient time since the end of the Flood for complete isostatic equilibrium to be attained. As a result, current geologic activity can be seen as continued isostatic readjustments to Flood events. Modern earthquake and volcanic activity is in some sense relict Flood dynamics...
Where are the scientific tests of even just these three statements? Do you see now what it is we have been trying to say?
The papers you presented as valid scientific research present no actual science. They simple say "why" they feel certain things are the way they are or how certain events may have unfolded, but they conduct no experiments to see if those wants and desires have any support.
Here again are the steps needed to conduct valid scientific research.
You need to make some sort of observation of a natural event.
You ask questions about that event.
You formulate a testable hypothesis or testable hypotheses.
You design and conduct experiments to address both your test hypothesis {es} and your null hypothesis {es}.
You analyze the results and then either accept or reject you test hypothesis.
You present your findings and conclusions to your peers for review.
Many things can happen from here, but basically...
Jack's a doughnut, there you go.
Creationism and ID essentially fall apart as scientific endeavors at the "Hypothesis Formation" stage. They either formulate non-testable hypotheses or they formulate hypotheses but conduct no tests to see if they can be supported. If I wrong here, show me where. Show me either a testable creationist hypothesis or an experiment conducted on a creationist’s hypothesis.

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 9:13 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 302 of 304 (359019)
10-26-2006 12:23 PM


Conclusions
Firstly Buz’s perseverance in the face of adversity is to be commended. I fundamentally disagree with almost his entire viewpoint but I think he has put his point across in good faith. It was pity that more creationists were not able to take up the baton and help his cause.
I personally would argue that creationist science is in fact impossible.
Not because, as Buz suggests in his last post, I believe that any conclusion that is compatible with biblical creation is inherently unscientific. This conclusion is as potentially valid as any other as long as it is made scientifically
Nor because the definition of science actively precludes anything that contradicts or provides alternatives to established scientific theories.
There is a fine history within science of established theories being refuted, discredited and eventually overturned by better ones. This is how science progresses.
The reason I think creationist science is fundamentally impossible is because it reverses the very foundations of why we undertake scientific investigation in the first place. Any faith based position is by definition not looking for answers. It is looking for verification. Without the spirit of discovery and the desire to accurately investigate the unknown the driving force that lies behind the methods of science are missing.
Science holds physical evidence supreme in an effort to enforce an objectivity that will result in truthful findings that tell us about reality without reference to the beliefs or prejudices of the investigator.
Science holds detailed prediction in higher esteem than any other form of verification exactly because it is so difficult to achieve and it is therefore the best indication of the truth of a theory that we have.
I do not claim that every conventional scientist achieves these ideals or is even consciously aware of them when undertaking their research. However I do think any true scientist would accept them as ideals.
Creationists already believe they have the answers to the great questions. They are not undertaking research ultimately to discover new truths in the widest sense. Because of this they do not have idealised reasons for conducting research in a manner that is most conducive to ensuring that their theories are the closest objective approximation to the truth achievable.
Nor are they as stringent in ensuring that their methodologies impose all the checks and balances on a given theory that this approach necessitates.
This I would argue is why creationist research can be so lackadaisical regards it’s methods and foundation in physical evidence.
This is why refutable predictions are so notably absent from almost all creationist conclusions.
No matter that creationists present their research in a manner that resembles scientific data gathering. No matter that the claims being made on barely hidden assumed biblical truths are called hypotheses. This is just dressing a faith based claim in the clothes of science in attempt to give it the same authority science has achieved as a result of it's success.
Ultimately if the investigation in question does not set out to unlock unknown mysteries about reality and impose measures to ensure that the best possible objective answer is achieved, it is just not science.
Creationist research, and any other faith based research for that matter, is not and cannot be, scientific in any area that conflicts with it’s faith based beliefs and the way in which these interact with the physical world.
Creationist research is not seeking to investigate the unknown or to provide innovative and creative yet truthful answers to the seemingly unknowable. For that reason above all other it is not science.
I believe the examples here have demonstrated that.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 304 (359175)
10-26-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by FliesOnly
10-26-2006 11:29 AM


FliesOnly writes:
Where are the scientific tests of even just these three statements? Do you see now what it is we have been trying to say?
Hi Flies. Those test are off someplace under the proverbial rug along with your tests on how evo male and female ever got together in the first organisms simultaneously so as to evolve their stuff to reproduce before the death of one or both of them and such stuff as that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by FliesOnly, posted 10-26-2006 11:29 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by AdminOmni, posted 10-26-2006 10:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 304 (359188)
10-26-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Buzsaw
10-26-2006 9:13 PM


That's all, folks!
Say goodnight, thread.

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
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 303 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 9:13 PM Buzsaw 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