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

Your hypothesis is creationism? What does that mean... in some concrete terms? Methinks that hypothesis includes more hypotheses which have been falsified.On another subject I am surprised that you have faith in the earth orbiting the sun, when that is just as much "against" scripture as evolution is. Remember? The church suppressed such scientific research for years (well centuries actually) until they simply could not deny the evidence any longer.Why should this not be the case now with evolution? Is there something more important about one set of passages than another?

---

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

Sorry Charles I'm in a Charlestown all to my own. It is the RESULT of a month of reading. Do ask a particular question and you WILL BE able to find the "contrast" for this is not meant to be a one sided discussion thread as the topic displays in brown not black. The word "range" comes to mind then.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-20-2004 02:25 PM

What I meant was that there is no intrinsic difference. That research consists of all facets of the scientific method, not just the falsification part. I don't know why (if) creationists are not published in those journals. Maybe their bias gets in the way, maybe the editors' bias gets in the way. True, it would not confirm creation. But if there are only two possible ways for something to have happened(and I haven't heard of a third hypothesis for origins, although maybe one is out there), and one of them is shown to have not occured, then there are two options. One, assume that the possible way happened, or Two, assume that there is another, unknown, possibility.Because of option two, creation is not logically proven if evolution is disproven. However, in the absence of another known possibility, it is reasonable to believe that the only known possible way for something to have occured, occured. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you guys that the name doesn't fit, and I'm trying to think of another name that at least I can use. Creation, if it occurred, cannot be examined. It was a historical event, which occurred in the distant past. As a historical fact, it is not falsifiable.The only evidence I know of for creation is the evidence against the rival hypothesis, evolution. This linkage is not a scientific linkage. It is common sense, which is sometimes the only tool we have to examine things. That is why, when trying to show creation reasonable/probable/very probable, creation scientists attempt to falsify evolution.Also, it is because of the evidence that I believe creationism; I have not started there looking to prove it. If the evidence wasn't there, I would be an evolutionist. That is because creationism cannot be proven wrong.Lam says: Yikes! I think you misunderstood me, but so did everybody else, so I guess it was my fault. Apologies for the bood pressure... Anyway, I was trying to misrepresent scientific method in my example, which I will repeat here: I was trying, by exaggeration, to show the difference between the scientist and the science. If an unscientific person works in a certain field of science, that doesn't make the field unscientific. Well, I can juggle... You are right; facts can be proven, theories can't. What I meant was theory, but I said hypothesis. I was using the words interchangably, which I shouldn't have been doing. Apologies. True; I messed up. I was talking about having faith in facts, which is really stupid.Holmes says: I know that there are other views of creation. What I am talking about is without the possibility of evolution, the only other idea I am aware of is a form of complete, supernatural creation. I cleared up some of this earlier in the post. What other alternatives are you talking about? I cleared that up, too. I wasn't specific enough earlier, you are right. I haven't claimed that falsifying one theory proves another; I fully agree(d) with this statement. The goal of creation scientists is to scientifically show evolution to be wrong. It is fine with me if it is not considered a branch of science, but that doesn't mean it is unscientific. As long as I am scientific in my attempts to "knock out" evolution, what do my motives matter? (I have my best to not let them hinder me.)Hobbes says: It means that among the things that I hold true is the statement "In the beginning God..." and that it only took seven literal days. The "church" supressed a lot more genuine science than just that. First, that was the catholic church; I am not catholic, and second, they did not have scripture to back themselves up.I have a question for you guys:What sort of opposition to the theory of evolution which you would accept as scientific? Is there any possible scenario where a supernatural power would be accepted as, although not scientifically investigatable, not ridiculous?

What you will be hearing increasingly from me in the future is that GG's two states of folded and unfolded are brought on by meiosis and metabolic thermoelectic current redirection sematically passed between generations and this is not at odds with ID even in the ICR rejected position of Biblical Authority. It did away with Eldridge's notion of creationism of Provine and ecosystems but showing that indeed the niche construction and selected genes from a nonneutral polymorphic equilibrium by macrothermodynamics is something I have not done. The current equations show a netural condition for the line through any adaptive landscape but my theoretical synthesis and analsysi of supramoleucar reality indicates contrarily that a deviation from the line will not send the organisms into a different state. This is not nonsense. Simply the cutting floor edge instead. You might as well send a brick by fedex then.

You are still confusing terms it seems. Many Evolutionists have no problem with "In the beginning God", but the rest of the Genesis myth, the seven literal days has certainly been falsified. Not even most Christian Churches hold that as a literal interpretation and it is certainly not part of many Christian's Dogma.But you still make an error in your view of how science works.Science does not work to prove OR disprove any Theory.You do make a hypothesis. You do test the hypothesis. But proving or disproving the hypothesis are equally valid outcomes. The conclusion can never come first.When you say that something has a goal of disproving some theory, that means you have already determined the conclusion.That is not, and can not be science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

What I meant was that there is no intrinsic difference. That research consists of all facets of the scientific method, not just the falsification part. I don't know why (if) creationists are not published in those journals. Maybe their bias gets in the way, maybe the editors' bias gets in the way.

---

Or, perhaps creation scientists are not practicing science. I have one scientific publication to my name, and I have two papers right now that have been turned down for publication. Why? The reviewers felt that our hypothesis was not fully supported. Guess what? The editor's are biased, and there bias is towards hypotheses that are supported by solid evidence and well structured experiments. Guess what I am doing about those papers that were rejected? I am running more experiments to fill in the gaps. Guess what creation scientists do when they are rejected by journals? They whine about bias. Give me a break.

quote:

---

Because of option two, creation is not logically proven if evolution is disproven. However, in the absence of another known possibility, it is reasonable to believe that the only known possible way for something to have occured, occured.

---

Option three: The pantheon of greek and roman gods did it.Option four: Time traveling humans went started the first life on earth.Option five: Space aliens started life on earth.Option six: The Genesis Project, as seen in The Wrath of Khan, is real.Option seven: The Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn swished her tail and the earth was created.Need me to go on? The creation story in Genesis is just one of many possibilities. Falsifying evolution will not make that story correct and more than it will make the options above correct. Just for an example, can you show me the experiments I can run or the evidence I can use so that I can tell if Zeus, Odin, or the Christian God created the earth?

quote:

---

Creation, if it occurred, cannot be examined. It was a historical event, which occurred in the distant past. As a historical fact, it is not falsifiable.

---

BS. If the world were created in seven days only 6,000 years ago there should be evidence of this happening within the earth and within the DNA of us and other organisms. The lack of that evidence and evidence found contrary to the predictions of such an event happening falsifies "creation" as a historical event. What you should say is that you don't want it to be tested due to the poor track record of science derived from religious beliefs (see geocentrism vs heliocentrism).

quote:

---

Also, it is because of the evidence that I believe creationism; I have not started there looking to prove it. If the evidence wasn't there, I would be an evolutionist.

---

How about the evidence that supports evolution? Are you ignoring that as well? If the evidence wasn't there for evolution, do you think hundreds of thousands of working scientists would use it as the foundation of their work? Did you come to your conclusions in the absence of christianity? Or did you believe in a literal creation due to your religious beliefs?

quote:

---

That is because creationism cannot be proven wrong.

---

You can't prove that there isn't an Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn. Does that mean that the IFPU exists? The other problem is that there is no evidence that a literal, six day creation even happened, just as the evidence for my lovely IFPU doesn't exist. So really, you must also believe that the IFPU exists given your own criteria.

quote:

---

I was trying, by exaggeration, to show the difference between the scientist and the science. If an unscientific person works in a certain field of science, that doesn't make the field unscientific.

---

Creation science is what creation scientists do. Therefore, the way in which creation scientists practice their inquiry is exactly what creation science is. If they followed the rules of science, then we wouldn't have to qualify it by calling it "creation" science. They start from the conclusion and cram in evidence where it doesn't belong. They are trying to put the square peg in the round hole while denying it the whole time. Unfortunately, it takes knowledge in the biological sciences and in scientific methodologies to understand just how mistaken they really are. Because of this, they have drug the good names of well meaning christians through the proverbial mud. Not only that, but they have risked the christian walk of many followers by requiring them to swallow their lies in order to be a "real christian". You can't mix good religion with bad science, or Jesus' teachings and outright lies, and expect the result to be anything close to edifying.And just so you know, scientists are trying to disprove evolution as well. Everytime they do a DNA sequence, dig up a fossil, date a rock, or observe an ecosystem it is very possible that their observatioons will falsify evolution. All it takes is finding a bunny rabbit in the same layer as a trilobite. Yet, scientists still search for fossils knowing that they may find exactly that. All it takes is finding the same large DNA sequence in birds and man, yet scientists continually examine the DNA of numerous species and do comparisons ON A DAILY BASIS. Do you see creation scientists looking for these things? Nope. All we hear is name calling, quote mining, strawmen, models that are falsified by evidence available to anyone, ad hoc hypotheses that are supported by zero evidence, and on and on. If creation scientists really wanted to falsify evolution they wouldn't be doing this. Instead, they would be trying to find that bunny rabbit with the trilobites, that DNA sequence that shouldn't be there, that dinosaur fossil that dates to only 7,000 years ago, etc. Creation scientists are nothing more than naysayers with self appointed titles whose own self importance is supposed to make the rest of the world ignore the evidence under their own feet.

quote:

---

What sort of opposition to the theory of evolution which you would accept as scientific? Is there any possible scenario where a supernatural power would be accepted as, although not scientifically investigatable, not ridiculous?

---

I think I listed quite a few up above. Here are some more.1. A fossil that has both avian and mammalian characterstics. In other words, a fossil intermediary between birds and mammals.2. Witnessing of a flood event that sorts fossils in the same manner seen in the fossil record.3. Witnessing of a limestone bed that increases a foot a day.4. DNA samples that show a pristine human just after "The Fall".5. A cytochrome b gene that is identical in two dramatically different species (say a wolf and an elephant).6. Multiple ERV insertions in the same homologous location in the genome between two dramatically different species (say a bird and an elephant).7. A mountain that is created through the collision of two plates within 1 year. This mountain must also be exactly like other mountains that have been hypothesized to be created slowly over thousands and millions of years.That is a start. Want more?

Firstly, we need to clear up a common misconception - the theory of evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Creationism is a view on origins, evolution is a theory about how life proceeds after origins. Therefore, they cannot be rival theories.Perhaps the timescale involved contradicts your literal reading of the Bible, but that is a different matter - you should be arguing in one of the Dates & Dating forum.I'd be interested to hear your "evidence" against evolution, that confirms your faith in creationism. Exactly, creation scientists are biased, so they do not practice true scientific method. Editors are biased against individual creation scientists because they don't follow the scientific method.Thus there is an "intrinsic difference" - if there was no difference, creation science would be published if valid. I'm not sure of this statement - what evidence have you seen, and what have you not started looking for? It seems you are admitting a one-sided viewpoint... though I'm not sure what it is. If you haven't seen the evidence on both sides, how can you make such a strong stance?Again, what evidence? I don't want to lead this discussion off-topic, but perhaps if you have strong evidence it could lead to productive discussion in another thread.

The only evidence I know of for creation is the evidence against the rival hypothesis, evolution. This linkage is not a scientific linkage. It is common sense, which is sometimes the only tool we have to examine things. That is why, when trying to show creation reasonable/probable/very probable, creation scientists attempt to falsify evolution.Why rely on common sense when we have science? If you are saying that creation can't be tested with science, you are basically giving up any claims that you were making towards Creation scienceIndeed as other pointed out - what if you did manage to falsify evolution - so what?That still leaves you with about 3600 Gods who could have done it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 04:47 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-20-2004 05:11 PM

Wrong... on two counts.First you used the word "possible" to describe the either/or scenario. Well what about creation theory makes it "possible"? Because it was written down by someone at some point in time? So was the Lord of the Rings, but that does not make Middle Earth "possible" does it?I think what you have done is equivocated on is the words "possible" and "probable". What you really mean is between two PROBABLE theories, refutation of one leaves the other standing as a probability. Unfortunately to be probable, one must have advanced some evidence to support that theory.If for some reason you really meant "possible", as in ANYTHING is possible, then surely you can think of alternative theories to creation or evolution.This is your second problem. Loudmouth has already mentioned some alternatives. Two hot theories (outside of other religious creation myths) are time travel and alien seeding or domestication.But I could also mention nondeity oriented "pushing" of life. This involves extra dimensional wills helping chemicals combine and driving changes, in order to have better bodies to inhabit.There is also the general "Gaia" concept of life ITSELF being a driving force to begin and change. In this scenario there are no Gods, but an inertia or momentum toward life creation. Again, I believe even you would want to mean "probability" and not simply "possibility". But be that as it may, falsification of one would leave the other one as the only theory in contention. It, however, must prove its worth all by itself, or it goes away.A scientist cannot rest on his laurels once he has finished criticizing an opponent's theory. That is NOT science. That is pseudo-science. Actually you did not read the entire sentence or you would have realized it was coming to the opposite conclusion as you. I think what you did was glommed onto the first sentence which I misphrased so it sounded like something you would believe... the second half was wholly contradictory.Let me rephrase:Falsifying a theory does not make any competing theory more probable (or possible) at ALL, (now here's the important part) yet a theory can make its way over competing theories without ever introducing falsifications of them. The only thing necessary, and so the MOST IMPORTANT part of science is creating hypothesis for one's own theory and testing them as valid.This stands in stark contrast to your claim falsification of other theories is just as important. It's importance is in fact, nil. Oh it can sure be handy, but it is unnecessary and insufficient to have one's own theory become a leading theory. I did not say UNscientific, I said PSEUDOscientific. That means it uses the trappings of science and may perhaps use scientific methods in parts, but as a whole does not adhere to them throughout.Where they depart from science they are unscientific, where they stick to them they are scientific, because they are willing to embrace both as a necessary part of attaining their goal, they are Pseudo-scientific.Once again, starting with a preconception not derived from any evidence, and then trying to knock out a theory (derived from evidence) which may run counter to it... and that being the entirety of one's goal... is pseudo-science. You missed the point. You can secretly be rooting for whatever to become the leading theory regarding any phenomena. But in science there should be NO MOTIVES... beyond an interest in fitting the pieces of a subject together.Especially pseudoscientific, is to start with a preconception (which did not come from the evidence one is dealing with) that can be advanced by knocking out a "competing" theory. This is not a hypothesis. Or certainly not a singular one. There should be more description of entities and mechanisms. First, it makes no difference if they were catholic or not. The writings of the Bible were Jewish... does that concern you?Second, they most certainly did have scripture to back them up. I cannot believe that you are claiming otherwise. What do you think they were trying to defend? I am going to have to assume you are not a fair debater if you (as a Xian nonetheless) are going to force me to dig up historical evidence which is pretty well known.You know the church even had Galileo write a treatise trying to balance the two theories... as you are trying to do now with creationism?What happened is once the evidence became so compelling, and the church too weak to suppress it, the questionable scripture became unimportant poetics rather than real pronouncement of fact.Why can this not be the case now?And by the way I know Xians (and that means catholic as well as protestant) have suppressed a lot of good science in the name of scripture. That does not help your case. Loudmouth did a good job of suggesting evidence that would undermine evolutionary theory and make more probable (by fact of positive evidence) creationism. Of course there could be more listed for other creation scenarios (for example we actually run into aliens or time travelers that show us what they did... or maybe we find it in a wrecked vehicle).But I want to say something more concrete about the question you posed. It is sort of loaded for me to say there is NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO.That is because you removed the supernatural from scientific investigation. If it is beyond that in your hypothetical, then it is beyond science period.One could add that it has been put beyond the PRACTICAL... which is what science is about. What use is it to conjecture about things we have no way of understanding through experience?For your question to have merit, you need to ask "is there something we could experience which would make previously thought "supernatural" entities, or mechanisms, "natural" and so part of scientific theory?"That is the only way for it to make sense. And the answer is yes.I am uncertain why if there is a God, or Gods, and they really made the universe and life, they are waiting outside of time and space (where previously they interacted with humans pretty consistently) and shaping the universe to look totally opposite from the way they said they created things in their mythology.This has always raised the question in my mind, if God goes to all the trouble to put the dinosaur bones where he did and screws with time to make dating inaccurate (for an older universe), then shouldn't we simply go along with that?Maybe he's testing to see if we're using the faculties he gave us, or if we'll follow any leader with a command presence and a book (made by who knows who).

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

What about the statement of faith that all of the major Creation science organizations require their scientists to sign and adhere to?They are very specifically anti-science and can only utterly stifle critical thought, as far as I can tell.No real scientific institution requires anything like this.Here is the one from CRS:Page Not Found - HolySmoke! AiG has a similar, but more detailed one that can be seen at: Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis Some of the more anti-science bits are: How can someone do science with all of these restrictions upon what they are allowed to think?What place do actual evidence or falsification have to someone who believes that the Bible trumps all evidence in nature anyway?

Hehe, the short-sightedness on the part of creationists always makes me laugh. From the AiG quote: Replace "evience" with "The Bible" and the statement is just as true. However, scientific evidence is objective in nature while interpretations of the Bible are inherently subjective. Hence, interpretations of the Bible are less trustworthy since there is nothing subjective to compare them to.

Why is there between intelligent people such profound disagreement about evolution/science /creation?
No other fields of science suffer such questioning?Us creationists simply insist the Bible is a legitamate witness for origins. (Even if wrong it is until proven wrong a legitamate witness)
Then we say that the natural world will demostrate this and nowhere contradict this. And we then deal with the evidence. SIMPLE.YOu evolutionists say (and not just privately) to society that you have the truth of origins and the Bible IS wrong.
And then you offer what really happened. SIMPLE.BUT then they go a step further. They say they have PROVEN thier view. They have by evidence proven evolution etc is right and the Bible is wrong. They tell society this and it is insisted by the establishment in our society that is is DONE. Schools etc must submitt.We creationists say WRONG! Wrong to what you ask. We answer well yes wrong about thier conclusion but thats not what we mean. We say WRONG they have not proven thier case and proven us wrong.
After this we contend about evidence.We argue against two matters. Evolution etc and second that evolution HAS been proven.Evolutionists say SCIENCE is the way to prove things. WE agree but then say evolution is not science. It does not fit the rules to be called science. It is but an historical subject.we say creation science is the same as evolution science but evolutionists say we don't fit the rules to be called science.Then endless contending about what science is and isn't.
Somebody is wrong.
Either evolution is science and thus its conclusions should hold the weight of ideas like gravity etc. or those who believe evolution is science have got the equation wrong on the blackboard.I'm confident evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are not sciences. They have not proven thier assertions and have no place in society to be presented as if they have. Which is the case now. Also they oppose what I see as the truth but thats beside the point.
Well why can't this be settled right here on evcforum. Are we not intelligent.We creationists say you are not a scietific study. Well if you are then it should be the most easy thing in the world to demostrate you are so that NO one can with any credibility say otherwise.
50% of America say evolution is wrong. In 2004 this should not be if you are right.Is there any articulate intelligent evolutionists believer out there who can prove evolution subjects are scientific subjects. (in 30 words or less)
AGAIN this should not be in contention in 2004
Regards Rob

Is there any articulate intelligent evolutionists believer out there who can prove evolution subjects are scientific subjects. (in 30 words or less)That's a bit of a bloody cheek isn't it? considering how rambling and hard to understand your post was?

Byers, you are quite the frustrating fellow. You didn't get away with this argument in the fossil sorting thread, so now you move it here?Just because you have the preconceived notion that scientists "prove" theories based on the lay press, does not mean that it is part of the scientific method. No real scientist will ever state that they have "proven" evolution.You can write something as many times as you want, in all caps if you like, but that will not make it true.At the base of your arguments, you do not understand what science is or how it works, so you should definitely not be labeling things as science and non-science. The problem you seem to have is with those presenting science to the public, not those actually doing the science. I once was interviewed regarding some of my scientific findings - I was extremely careful with my words, but when the press release came out, my conclusions had gotten distorted anyway. There is currently a movement to improve communication from science to reporter to public - unfortunately it seems to be developing rather slowly. Scientists studying evolution use the scientific method, proposing hypotheses or theories based on observation, and then test those hypotheses, confirming or falsifying them with objective evidence.I would be interested in what objective evidence you have that falsifies the theory of evolution.Part of the key to being 'real' science is that the conclusions do not come before the evidence. All of creation science I have heard of operates with a foregone conclusion, and is therefore not science (this foregone conclusion is evidenced in the above messages regarding oaths required to practice (pseudo)science at a creation science organization.The other key issue is that most creation scientists do not try to provide evidence for creation, rather they try to falsify evolution. Science does not confirm one theory by falsifying another, unrelated theory.

quote:

---

Us creationists simply insist the Bible is a legitamate witness for origins.

---

It takes more than insisting that the Bible is a legitamate witness, you have to have evidence to back it up. Even in civil court, a single witness is not enough to convict a criminal or to default scientific evidence. Evolution does more than insist, it matches up with the evidence, something creationism has yet to do.

quote:

---

BUT then they go a step further. They say they have PROVEN thier view.

---

No, they haven't. Scientists claim that the theory is consistent with ALL of the evidence. However, science is always making new observations and finding new evidence. Therefore, it is possible that new observations or new evidence could falsify evolution. The books are never closed in any of the sciences. Nothing besides math can be proven 100%.

quote:

---

They tell society this and it is insisted by the establishment in our society that is is DONE. Schools etc must submitt.

---

No, creationist websites twist the words of scientists and pass those lies along to their fundie followers. Schools teach the most current, and accurate theories. That just happens to be evolution right now.

quote:

---

We answer well yes wrong about thier conclusion but thats not what we mean. We say WRONG they have not proven thier case and proven us wrong.

---

Why should we (ie scientists) prove something in a field that does not require absolute proof? Science does not rely on absolute truth, just models and theories that are consistent with the evidence and inconsistent with none of the evidence. Creationism doesn't fit the bill because the predictions made by the happenings in Genesis are not evident in the real world. Creationism doesn't fit the evidence, plain and simple. Why should we teach something that doesn't work, and not teach something that does work? Oh, that's right, because it goes against your religious convictions.

quote:

---

We argue against two matters. Evolution etc and second that evolution HAS been proven.

---

You have already won one battle before you even started. Evolution is not proven, nor will it ever be (unless time travel becomes a reality). However, creationism has been falsified which is really a larger problem for you. Why is it that we don't here about fossil hunts for that bunny rabbit in the cambrian sediments? Because if it isn't found creationists will know that they are wrong, and that is the last thing they want. They don't want to test their theories because they know that they can never be supported by positive evidence, so they act like the school bully and pick on other people to make up for their own inadequacies. This is what happens when you domatically start with a conclusion that HAS to be true, you tend to ignore the evidence or stop trying to look for evidence that supports your case. The creationist motto should be "Ignorance is Bliss."

quote:

---

Evolutionists say SCIENCE is the way to prove things. WE agree but then say evolution is not science. It does not fit the rules to be called science. It is but an historical subject.

---

Wrong, evolutionists say science is the best tool for investigating the natural world. Science is a tool. Science requires repeatable observations, objective metrics, and theories that are consistent with all of the evidence. Evolution uses science to uphold it's theories. Therefore, evolution is a science. Creationism ignores the rules of science, and instead relies on religious faith alone. But maybe you should correct me, since I am so wrong. What are the rules of science according to you?Forensics is a science, and it tests history. Paternity tests are a science, and they test history. But really, the fossils are here and now. The layers they are in are here and now. We are studying features of the earth in the present. Evolution is also observed in the here and now, and the DNA similarities between species are here and now. The theory of evolution can be falsified by these same pieces of evidence, by the same methodologies. How can creationism be falsified? How can creationism be tested by the fossil record or DNA? Creationism isn't even a historical subject, it is a dogmatic position that ignores history.

quote:

---

we say creation science is the same as evolution science but evolutionists say we don't fit the rules to be called science.

---

First rule: positive statements must be supported by positive evidence. You have yet to do that. Claiming something is true, without evidence, until proven otherwise is non-scientific.Second rule: Your conclusion must be reached by the collection of evidence and observations. Creationists assume the conclusion in spite of the evidence. Creationists ignore data if it doesn't fit their conclusion. Creationists fail miserably at fitting into the rules of science.Third rule: Natural mechanisms for natural phenomena, also called methodological naturalism. In other words, claiming miracles is not a scientific principle.

quote:

---

Either evolution is science and thus its conclusions should hold the weight of ideas like gravity etc. or those who believe evolution is science have got the equation wrong on the blackboard.

---

Being that evolution fits all of the data, as does the theory of gravity, I would say they are equal. They are both written correctly on the blackboard.

quote:

---

50% of America say evolution is wrong. In 2004 this should not be if you are right.

---

The truth is not something you vote on, it is something that you test. 2,000 years ago, 100% of the population would have said that the sun orbits the earth. Popular opinion can be wrong. That is why science relies on objective, instead of subjective (voting), evidence to test their theories. Objective evidence is impervious to bias, subjective evidence is swayed by bias and unsupported opinion. If evolution is wrong, then we should have found that bunny in the cambrian, that grass pollen in the Jurassic, that modern buffalo in the Triassic. If evolution is so wrong, why do stratigraphy and cladistics match up, why do DNA similarities match up with the fossil record, why do we find patterns of ERV's that match evolutionary predictions? In fact, why doesn't something conflict with the theory of evolution? If it is wrong, why is it always right? If creationism is right, why does it have to be supported with theories that have zero evidence behind them (such as your now famous "concentrated mammals")? Why do you have to assume creationism is right in order for it to work? Shouldn't the evidence lead you to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old instead of having to explain the evidence away?

quote:

---

Is there any articulate intelligent evolutionists believer out there who can prove evolution subjects are scientific subjects. (in 30 words or less)

---

Sure, here we go (those don't count towards the 30).When someone claims that they have evidence, you should be able to physically verify that the evidence exists. If someone claims evidence that is not verifiable, then they are not doing science. (going beyond my 30 words) If someone constructs a theory that is not supported by the evidence, then that is not a scientific theory.