Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 25 of 207 (501819)
03-07-2009 10:21 PM


Smoke and Mirrors
Creation Science stems back in time from when many fields were co-opting the name "science" to lend an air of more bona fides to their studies. So we have Political Science, Behavioral Science, Social Science, Computer Science, etc. They all have some areas where they can generate the rigor of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics), but a lot of spots where this gets "iffy". Hell, even Mortuary Science has some rigor () in it. But Creation Science has got no area where real science rigor can fit.
But they want you to believe since they use the word "science", it is science. Phooey.

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 31 of 207 (501877)
03-08-2009 11:43 AM


Kelly:
I spent a lot of time reading the other thread, the precursor to this one. And there is the usual list of people purporting to support Creation Science. Now, among those I see the name, Louis Pasteur. I know you've said you are not really conversant about science, but I ask that you remove Pasteur's name. Anyone who has read his work, as I have (OK my French is non-existent, but good translations abound) knows you are using him. I presume it's the usual Creationist blabber about how "Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation". But again, if you would actually read his work you would know that he did not disprove spontaneous generation. Indeed, no one could disprove it since the number of possibilities for testing approaches huge numbers. What he did was prove, for the prior observations of "spontaneous generation", that the results were due to bacteria in air, and nothing else. I know this because I am supposed to know the beginnings of my science (and I do) and that Pasteur was a great mind.
And just because a person professes a belief in a God does not make them a Creation Scientist. Before Darwin there was no other choice - so toss them off your list. Then there was a transition period where the Theory of Evolution slowly got acceptance in the scientific community, simply because it offered an explanation that made sense in all biological fields. During that transition there were a number who clung to Creationism. Today the number of authentic biologists who are Creationists is minuscule, not because there are Evolution Police, but because the theory is successful in describing the origin of species.
Hoping and praying that Creation "Science" will be accepted by scientists is a delusion. I appreciate your efforts in what must feel like alien territory here, but perhaps you should examine your own beliefs. Many people keep their faith and support evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 4:15 PM Sarawak has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 99 of 207 (502151)
03-10-2009 12:35 AM


As a practicing scientist who has performed thousands of experiments, I know what it is like to design a "tight" experiment, one that you know will give you correct information. Sure I might have an idea that the results should be 42 +/- 5, but if the results come out to be 200 +/- 10, then I have to revise my ideas. Data are data and not subject to revision from a "tight" experiment.
But a Creation Scientist is put into an uncomfortable spot. Say he sends off a sample that he thinks should be 4500 years ago at the time of Noah, and the result comes back 85,000,000 years ago. What does he do? He cannot change his idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. He is stuck there by faith. So does he send the sample off to another place for dating? And the answer is again 85,000,000. Now he is in big trouble. He either has to throw out the data or attack the method. But if the experiment is "tight" (and its design is his and subject to scrutiny by scientists), the method will hold up. So he throws it out, saying, in effect, that his experimental design was no good.
But, more typically, the Creation Scientist never allows an experiment that could contradict his preconceived idea. He just never does any science. I think deep down inside all Creation Scientists know the data will never support their ideas, so they are put into a position of never doing any experiments. Instead they try to chew holes in other's work.
They look bad, silly and petty and never address the problems they think are so important. There's a lot of smoke and hand waving, but nothing ever comes out of the Creation Scientist's "experiments".

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024