The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

I do see your point but at the same time it's also an arguement to the future, no?

I am not arguing that current creation scientists are scientific (although I'm not saying they aren't); nor that any creation scientist won't be scientific in the future. I am saying that a scientist can be completely scientific while working in the field of creation science.

But that we don't have any evidence of this at present?

This is currently a philosophical argument; the real world doesn't even have to be considered.Creation science is the attempt to falsify a hypothesis. That is scientific, and even though some people operating under the name "creation science" are unscientific, does not mean creation science is unscientific.Take, for example, if I was an evolutionist and saw an old dog and a young cat in my yard. I could come to the conclusion that the dog birthed the cat (because it was older). Then I could take my newfound proof of punk eek to the masses, and write books and become famous.In your opinion, would that make evolution unscientific?(disclaimer: I don't think creationists are that stupid, and neither do I think that evolutionists are. Neither am I admitting that I think evolution is a science; I am unsure about that right now.)

"Creation science" is an oxymoron."Creation" refers to having faith that a deity created everything as we know it by snapping his fingers. "Science" refers to the objective evidence driven inquiry of knowledge.How the hell can you be having faith in something and be objective at the same time?

---

The Laminator

​

If the research is identical, why can't anyone come up with an example published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? Do you have any examples? I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the either-or stance, since evolution does not deal with origins, and it is very easy to reconcile creation and evolution both occurring... As a matter of scientific method, falsifying evolution would not confirm creation.To me, part of the reason "creation science" is not science is because the bias and conclusion is included in the title "creation science". A true scientist would not accept the title "creation scientist", though someone practicing pseudoscience might. You're demonstrating that creation science is not real science with these statements. Real science does not accept a conclusion (creation) and then work towards it by trying to tear down a theory (evolution) unrelated to that conclusion.I've never heard of a geneticist (or any other genuine scientist) trying to "prove" evolution by disproving creationism.

Good point - how do you perform science around a belief that cannot be measured by science (ie the idea of God)?

Your conclusion would be unscientific, since you did not formulate and test a hypothesis to come up with confirming evidence before coming to your conclusion. Another possibility would be a more observational method, but you would need many, many more observations than your single one.If your example demonstrates how you think science works, no wonder you think creation science might be valid.

So is "grape nuts." "Creation science" is the name which has been applied to the endeavour to falsify evolution. I can see now where confusion would be, because the name appears to be making the statement that the field scientifically studies a miracle in the distant past.And, probably, that is where the name came from. However, I am not defending the name, but the field the name represents. If creation science was instead called "crackpot knuckleheadedness," that would have no bearing on whether or not the field is scientific. I do agree, though, that the name is an oxmoron. According to M-W online, faith is: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."According to scientific method, nothing can be proven. A hypothesis stands until it is falsified. My hypothesis is creationism, and it has never been falsified to me, so I continue to hold it. Similarly, I have faith in gravity, the earth orbiting the sun, etc.

This is an outright misrepresentation of the scientific method. If there is a device that allows me to physically hurt you through your screen right now, I would use it without regret. Noone ticks me off more than someone that uses the strawman like that... well, except for ignorant bigots.

---

The Laminator

​

Is there anything else you are good at besides misrepresenting science? According to the science, theories can never be proven. However, in order for it to be a theory, it needs to have lots and lots and lots of evidence that are proven to be evidence supporting the theory. What the hell are you talking about? A hypothesis doesn't mean crap until there are lots and lots of evidence supporting it and turn it into a theory. Your hypothesis is no different than a pile of crap, since you have no objective evidence to support it. This is as far away from science as anyone can get. You don't have to have faith in gravity or the heliocentric model. As a physics major, I have personally done experiments with results supporting the theory of gravity and the sun-centered... well, almost centered... model.This message has been edited by Lam, 07-20-2004 01:52 PM

---

The Laminator

​

Very glad that you brought this up.What you describe is a classic example of how many folk think science works. Too bad they are wrong.What actually happens (and happens quite often) is that the Evolutionist sees the old dog and young cat. Where you make the error is in the next step. That is not what would happen. The Evolutionist might well and reasonably make a hypothesis that the dog birthed the cat. That is certainly a valid hypothesis. But that is all that it is. The hypothesis must then be tested. When that happens, it will become obvious that the dog and cat are different species. Therefore, it is unlikely that the dog birthed the cat. Hypothesis disproved.Evolutionist happy.But let's carry it a few steps further. Let's say that the studies done on the dog and the cat included physiological and DNA examination. Those examonations show that there are many similarities between the two critters. They both appear to be, based on all the evidence, the same KIND of critter, namely Mammals. In fact, the DNA analysis shows that they share many of the same patterns, identical links, in their DNA. From that is possible to make another hypothesis, that all mammals will share certain traits.Lots of other mammals are tested and guess what, they all do share certain common traits. So the new hypothesis is supported.But then the question comes up, what about things that are not mammals? So lots of them are examined. And again, lots of similarities are found. So yet another hypotesis is made. The new hypothesis is that all the things that share those common traits are another KIND, a bigger KIND, called animals.But what about things that are not animals? So lots of things that are not animals, grass and trees and flowers and moss and lichen are tested and guess what, they all share common traits. So yet another hypothesis is proposed, and that is that all them things are part of a super KIND called living things.And that is the difference between science and Creation Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Whooooooooaaaaaa Nelly!1) It is not creation or evolution. And it is especially not just XIAN creation or evolution. There are alternatives to both, especially if you count totally unsupported theories. Can you explain why you believe it conveniently boils down to just Xian creation or evolution?2) Even if there were only two theories, finding one impossible does not make the other one necessary. There is always the possibility that BOTH are wrong and we just have no good ideas based on accumulated evidence. This is incorrect. Falsifying another theory never proves one's own theory correct, yet one's theory can become the leading theory by just being the best descriptive theory (it covers more evidence more coherently, even if none are wrong).This means the only important part of science is accumulating evidence on a subject and making sure a theory takes it all of it into account the best way possible.The others will fall by the wayside, even without being shown to be false. This is true, however if all creation scientists are pursuing the goal you described then they are practicing a pseudo-science. I have never heard of a field of science dedicated to DISproving something, that being natural as the very idea of science is to gain knowledge on a subject.Your own statements, the definition you gave, points toward people that have a preconception of something, abusing science to (in their minds) "knock out" specific theories which might conflict with that NONscience based preconception.If you can give me an example of any other field of science practiced like this, I'd start cutting CS some slack, on being something better than pseudo-science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But it *COULD* be EVIdence driven. While doing my due dilligence to Georgi's snail mail (in an attempt to deTERMine %any% physical parameters of Gladyshev's MATERIAL THERMOSTAT) I reviewed LPWILLIAMS' (who by the by gave me an &F& in an independent study I attempted with him on QED, Goethe, Newton and Snake Integument)on Faraday where (during this period of my grading anthoer relevant article on the interaction of the American Henry with F(&Wheatstone&Danellei) came out in a book Williams was still trying to write on Ampere (think Mercury and perversions then..))Williams HISTORICALLY (and spoke speaking for and in history)left the WORD "apriori" between two commas uncategorically and finally dismissing Voltanism for his own (NOT FARADAYS (nor Teslas I, BSM, add) UNDERSTANDING of the relation of chemistry and electricity but this DID NOT remand that Aggaisz's GOD OF PHYSICAL AGENTS (whether the actual agnostic agents in the Semantic Info of Niche constructors or not)probablistic independence of biological events in terms of possibilities of populations IF ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERING ****IS NOT***** thought of in non invention terms by creatures which on further reflective consideration of any mind open to Kantian notions STILL can be ONLY MATERIAL ( no matter the actual track width). Faraday for instance was thinking of volume changes of gas independent (by "conversion of" in Williams-speak) of difference IN THE POWER bEtWeEn diamagentic and paramagnetic atom complexes of today. In this same "session" I readily "imagined" that the "BRANCH" of Aggasiz might be within the power of Tesla&Faraday to reason such that herpetology as it is could spell out the THOMPSON DEVICE of thermal effect organically. Further Galton use of the Gauss error would on the science be correctable to the Mendelism in any kind of hierarchical thermodynamics with the only reasonable question as to if the grounding be in an Earthly trend as ISOALTED biogeographically so (with the water not the population understood) or if further discussion relevant to defintions of information itself be proceeded.
This analytic (which I dont doubt could be cobbled from Kant's reason) was possible by thought of the mass of water considered in YEC on the basis of the historian use of the word "apriori" and does not decide on the motivation or inclination in religion but is not in any way plausibly against the personal worship of any of the individuals involved.
Aggisz' "logic" is very tight between the branch, grade and type that those not suseptible to his form will only rather find Tyndal in the past noting only a change in the FORM OF SCIETIFIC DISCUSSION without recognizing the the thing is today but the error of yesterday.Words must mean what they really mean and not deconstruction can even take this away from the responsible reader. I read Dawkins' last book and am surprised that I could finally rid my mind of his notions once and for all. For within the above understanding from a protracted c/e discussion lies a complete conceptual agreement with GOULD instead but instead of saying this I will continue to work on the history of thermoelectricity for therein seems to HAVE BEEN the first attempt TO BUILD what any one can know today as the Gladyshev THERMOSTAT. It would not be irrelevant in the popular mind of the 1800s that to take a piece of metal and clean it and put in back inthe metal (mercury etc) brings biologic change via water macrothermodyanics ecosystem engineered finally into the web and out of the elite understood appearence once and for all. Long life the freedom to think. Let I B Cohen be put on notice.

Hi - I don't mean to be rude but that is unreadable (or it just me?).EDIT: No it's not just me - that's unreadable nonsense.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 02:20 PM