What is science?

Yes MrH evolutionists use double standards when it comes to the theory of evolution vs. any alternative. If you have been following you would have read that it was (an) evolutionist(s) that referred to measuring, and using our five senses. I was responding to that when I stated "The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed."That said we all know that the major transformations claimed by evolutionists have never been observed and can't be objectively tested. However the ToE is inferred because of naturalism and the grip it has on many people, including scientists (not all). Ya see MrH I am of the very honest opinion that on a level playing field ID and Creation would be seen as at least as scientific as the ToE.

John Paul says : What leads you to believe that is a fact?What Grand Claims have not been observed?If ONE of those Grand Claims were observed, would that constitute proof of evolution?What would constitute proof of testing or measurement?What would constitute a valid observation?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

John Paul,Quit being so disingenuous. I realize as well as you do that Percy's 'five senses' reference was never meant to suggest that we can witness the entire history of evolution with our very eyes and ears. The empirical evidence is for the mechanisms of evolution, and we infer from the overwhelming majority of the available observations a theory that explains the history of life on Earth.As for 'naturalism and the grip it has on many people,' I'm unaware of any scientific methodology other than naturalism that has helped us understand the universe better and more consistently. Perhaps you should educate us as to the methodology of supernaturalism and the advances it has helped us make in the history of scientific endeavor.regards,
Esteban Hambre

jar, by "grand claims" I am talking about the alleged "evolution" of cetaceans from land mammals or amphibs from fish, reptiles from amphibs, mammals from reptiles and birds from reptiles/ dinos. You can also put the allged "evolution" of eukaryotes from prokaryotes and metazoans from non-metazoans.BTW science is NOT about proof. But sure if we could observe one of those transformations that would add great weight to the ToE.

MrH, I am not being disingenius. Percy never stated he was referring to the ToE. Percy also said something about measurements and such.As for the alleged "overwhelming majority of the available observations...", I was once an evolutionist. This overwhelming BS was very mundane when looked at through objective eyes.As I have already stated great scientists looked at the universe under the Creation framework, ie that God Created it. They were very succesful. BTW they advanced science a great deal. Go figure...

quote:

---

Yes MrH evolutionists use double standards when it comes to the theory of evolution vs. any alternative.

---

Nope, evolution uses the same methodologies as any other science that is trying to explain past events. This includes geology, forensics, astronomy, and various other non-biological sciences.For example, even though we can't witness the conception of a child, we can still test for paternity. Evolution is no different. The theory makes predicitions of what we will find in nature, and those predictions have been observed. This includes fossil evidence and genetic evidence. Those observed, and fulfilled predictions are measured using our five senses, or instruments that aid our senses.

quote:

---

That said we all know that the major transformations claimed by evolutionists have never been observed and can't be objectively tested.

---

First hand? No. The evidence left behind "at the crime scene"? Yes.

quote:

---

However the ToE is inferred because of naturalism and the grip it has on many people, including scientists (not all).

---

Naturalism is used because it works. As MrH states, show us how assuming supernatural mechanisms has aided in furthering our knowledge in nature.

quote:

---

Ya see MrH I am of the very honest opinion that on a level playing field ID and Creation would be seen as at least as scientific as the ToE.

---

First you need a testable, falsifiable theory. Care to offer one?

John PaulThis is a presumption on the part of both Kepler and Galileo.What connection is evident between Mathematics and God that allows us to assume this to be the case?This is no more than opinion on the part of Kepler and Galileo. We do not have a firm grasp on the little we do know how do you go from there to the general statement that there is "one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."? Even if there was this does not mean God was responsible. In any universe there must some level of order imposed by the interaction of different forces.There would be basic principles of some extent no matter what. I am glad you brought this up as we are having a discussion in another topic dealing with this very point. Consider this.It is not necessary for life to arise from non-life since this position is likely just a bias on the part of we humans as conscious entities. If instead of looking for a border between life/non-life we observe that on the march through time we have atoms with varying properties combining to produce multiple new properties that are not present in the individual elements.
As the new compounds are bathed by different forces and interact with other new compounds there arise new properties and each of these again have totally new properties.Now here is the key.All of the phenomena of "life" can be shown to be a consequence of simple laws that govern the interaction of atoms.Complexity is easily shown to evolve from just a few key restrictions on what would otherwise be chaos.
Life is an illusion. We are just a step up the ladder of complexity. We,too,are bound by the laws of the universe.That we are conscious,thinking,reflecting, biological entities does not make us special just different.

---

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

quote:

---

I was once an evolutionist. This overwhelming BS was very mundane when looked at through objective eyes.

---

Hello, John Paul.This is an interesting comment. I was a creationist until it became evident to me that biological evolution explained the real world much better than creationism did.May I ask why you think you are more objective than anyone else? This isn't intended to be an insult, just an observation that every individual thinks that they are being logical and objective. How do you (or anyone else, for that matter) tell when you aren't being objective or logical?

I think he may have offered one. Part of which is that the nature of earth's geology is the result of a total, recent, huge, flood of the earth.This is falsifiable as it makes predictions about what the geology of the earth would be like, the distribution of living things would be like, the distribution of extinct life would be like and some other things.Of course, such predictions have been shown to be false.

Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are the opinions and conclusions of Creationists, not evidence. We're trying to answer the question, "What is science?", and to that end I'm trying to see if we agree on the nature of scientific evidence. Do you agree that evidence must be apparent to us in some way, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through instruments like microscropes and thermometers?Once we've reached agreement on the nature of scientific evidence, we can move on to consider whether science should limit itself to explanations for which there is evidence.This thread keeps drifting toward an evolution vs. ID debate, which is not the thread's topic, and so I'm reluctant to use these as examples, but they *do* offer an excellent contrast between your position and the position of science. Science says that you should propose explanations for which you have evidence. Therefore, science proposes that life, and later species diversity, arose through processes known to us and that we have much evidence for, in other words, that they obeyed all the laws and principles of physics, chemistry and biology.You, on the other hand, propose that life was designed by some intelligence. But there is no evidence for that intelligence, and it fails to address the key question of life's origin, i.e., if life can only be designed, then who designed our designer?Without evidence for the key phenomenon behind your explanation, it fails as science.--PercyPS - Some of the discussion seemed to hint at some confusion about whether my definition of evidence might be implying that if we don't see it then we can't know it happened. I meant to imply nothing of the sort. Most science today applies the hypothetico-deductive process. What this means is that we can deduce what happened from the evidence - it is by no menas necessary that we be eyewitnesses, and indeed in many cases such would be undesirable - we couldn't even imagine first-hand observation of ground-zero of a thermonuclear explosion or of the interior of a star or of a nuclear pile. We make our observations and measurements from a safe distance and deduce what happened based on the evidence.

quote:

---

"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."

---

JM: Of course, if this is true then everything is designed and we would have no reference for 'not designed'. That makes ID a tautology and quite useless as a scientific endeavor. When ID'ists such as Paul Nelson admit that ID is not scientific but belongs in a religion or theology class that should tell you that you're not up to speed on ID.CheersJoe Meert

Watta bout Stephen's Demon Farts do they count as supernatural??

Bumping this topic because Mark24 just proposed a very similar topic. John Paul was the most active Creationist in this thread, and it has dropped down the active thread list while waiting for him to reply. But this seems the right thread, so perhaps Mark24 could discuss the topic here? His thread proposal can be found at Windsor castle.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Almeyda,This is a topic I was going to start some time ago, since it applies not only to you, but nearly all creationists. The problem is that when a debate starts it becomes apparent that the creationist in question doesn't understand science & related logic well enough to piece together an argument consistent with it. This is why we get "evolution is religion", or "science can't prove XYZ", or "you can't have evidence of something of something that happened in the past", (& usually in the next breath claim they have evidence of a flood!).It is my hope that this thread will lay out what science is, how it works, & what is acceptable evidence to it. Moreover, by agreeing premises in advance, which is what should be done in any case, we eliminate any dishonest wriggle room for either side after the debate has begun. So, here are the important aspects of science & logic that must be adhered to & agreed upon in order for any meaningful scientific debate to take place:A/ Science uses a method known as the scientific method (which includes the hypothetico-deductive method). This involves making an observation via one of our five senses & inductively forming a hypothesis from it. This is an explanation for the observation.B/ The hypothesis must be knowable, & if false, that must be knowable, too. In scientific parlance this means the hypothesis must be deductively testable & also falsifiable. This is done by predictions being borne out, data that if found would support the hypothesis. Conversely, if data that contradicts the hypothesis is in evidence, then the hypothesis must be either rejected, or rewritten to accomodate the data. As in the hypotheses formation, evidence that constitutes the above criteria must be apparent to our five senses.C/ Nothing in science is "proven", assuming a definition of the word that involves absolute 100% surety on a given theory. All scientific hypotheses are tentative to one degree or another. A new hypothesis is highly tentative, the more predictictions that are borne out, that is, the more evidence it has in its favour, reduces the tentativity of that hypothesis. In highly supported hypotheses, which are known as theories (although the terms are interchangeable even in scietific circles, depending on context) the level of evidential support is high enough to render the theory so well supported that to withhold consent can be considered unreasonable. This is what is known as a scientific fact. In no way do evolutionists, or scientists in general, attempt to conflate a scientific fact with a definition that confers 100% knowledge.D/ Science may not, nor creationists for that matter, commit logical fallacies. In fact, a scientific hypothesis/theory must effectively be a logically valid argument were it to be espoused as such. The same is true of any argument made. A valid, evidentially supported argument is superior to an argument based upon incredulity, or any other logically fallacious argument.If you have any points of disagreement, please feel free to raise them. If not, please could you note your agreement here.Mark

Double postThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2004 12:39 PM