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:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 265 (126721)
07-22-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by pink sasquatch
07-22-2004 4:24 PM


quote:
There is currently a movement to improve communication from science to reporter to public - unfortunately it seems to be developing rather slowly.
Pinky, I am in utter agreement on this issue. One of science's biggest enemies is the media. "Nebraska Man" is probably a good example. Even the Discovery Channel is pretty sketchy on how they portray scientific findings, not to mention some of the junk on CSI. On the other hand, scientists also need to do a better job of communicating directly to the public. The first step should be in the science classroom, where Mr. Byers has somehow learned that science is about absolute proof. If people don't start off with a solid understanding of how science is constructed then the media will continue to distort things toward publicly held misunderstandings.
quote:
I would be interested in what objective evidence you have that falsifies the theory of evolution.
I would like to see it too. You would think, with all of these scientists abandoning the theory of evolution, they would have come up with at least something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-22-2004 4:24 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-22-2004 6:27 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 136 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-07-2004 9:30 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 62 of 265 (126747)
07-22-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Loudmouth
07-22-2004 4:59 PM


The first step should be in the science classroom... If people don't start off with a solid understanding of how science is constructed then the media will continue to distort things toward publicly held misunderstandings.
Absolutely, though I'm not sure of how the scientific method is currently taught K-12, it must vary considerably from district to district. Another part of the problem is simply that the "method" is less interesting than the demonstration experiment or the result, and therefore less likely to be remembered. Potentially if the method was stressed in relation to each experiment/concept students could better evaluate the status of the theory. Unfortunately most just want to know if they need-to-know-it-for-the-exam...
I'm sure it's for similar reasons that we don't routinely see documentary science shows, such as Nova or Scientific American Frontiers, where the scientific method is stressed in a way that an average non-scientist would appreciate. It isn't surprising, the scientific method isn't as sexy as the workings of the brain, curing cancer, etc...
To get the basic point across, either the scientists, interviewers, or editors tend to paint the basic point in black-and-white. From my personal experience I know that some scientists do this more than others - some will have a press release claiming they've essentially discovered a cure for cancer/HIV/etc., while others won't touch the idea of a cure with a ten-foot-pole no matter how promising their results.
Judith Folkman, the guy who came up with the idea of using angiogenesis inhibitors as cancer therapy, suffered from backlash related to a communication problem. He managed to 'cure' cancer in a specific mouse model of cancer, and Time magazine reported that he had come up with 'the' cure for cancer. When the inhibitors didn't live up to expectations in human cancer, the finger was pointed at Folkman for misleading the public, when all he ever claimed was that he cured a few mice.
Translation is definitely a problem, one that is on-topic here because those who claim creation science is true science seem to be comparing the creation science evidence to the lay interpretations of the conclusions arising from true scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 4:59 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 6:48 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 265 (126752)
07-22-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by pink sasquatch
07-22-2004 6:27 PM


quote:
Potentially if the method was stressed in relation to each experiment/concept students could better evaluate the status of the theory. Unfortunately most just want to know if they need-to-know-it-for-the-exam...
It can be done though. Unfortunately, science labs in high school already of the methodology laid out. Instead, there should be one class period devoted to the construction of the experiment, including what kind of controls are needed and what the null hypothesis is. Teachers of this era are put under the stress of having to cover a massive amount of information for standardized tests, which is a real shame. Education isn't a race, it is a process.
Just a sample experiment off of the top of my head:
Goal: What effect does UV radiation have on E. coli survivability.
Students would have to factor in possible variants, such as the surface area exposed to the UV light compared to the overall volume of the culture. What should the exposure times be? What should the controls be? How do we measure the number of bacteria? Give them the question and let them figure out how to solve it. I would even stress to teachers that they shouldn't lead them to the right answer. Instead, let them screw it up. This is how science is done. If it worked the first time it would be called search instead of research.
This directly applies to the evolution debate. What evidence would you look for if you want to disprove evolution? A verse in Genesis or a fossil in the ground? What is the null hypothesis within the theory of evolution? What controls or outgroups are needed to make the conclusions derived from evidence. Really, these type of questions can only be answered by those familiar with the scientific method. At one time I wasn't that familiar with radiometric dating of rocks. Just to be fair, I entered with an open mind with creationist arguments ready (just to be fair, mind you). Every step of the way I kept thinking "but you have to control for that", and in the very next paragraph they listed those exact controls. Science really is a tool, and it is easy to see when it is not being used, at least to those that are knowledgable about it's use. If you ask someone "What happened in your control group" and you get a blank stare in return you know that it is junk.
But perhaps the best evidence for a non-scientific stance is the statement "Prove that I am wrong." Somehow, among the non-scientific laity, fantasy is reality. If I can dream it, it must be until proved otherwise. Positive evidence before a conclusion, no falsifying evidence, control for all possible variants, and repeatable: the only way science is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-22-2004 6:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-22-2004 6:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 64 of 265 (126754)
07-22-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Loudmouth
07-22-2004 6:48 PM


You raise some excellent points - I agree that students should be involved in the design of the methodology, and be allowed to have an experiment fail. Sometimes it is more educational to write up a lab report on a failed experiment than one that worked flawlessly.
Even in some college labs as was trained with made-to-work experiment kits - I definitely learned less from those than from made-from-scratch experiments.
It would be nice to have a shift from a "what you need to know" focus (cramming in as many subjects as possible) to a "this is how to learn what we know" focus (fewer subjects in-depth with application of scientific method in a way that could be generalized).
Good post. I think I'll be asking creationists about their "control group" in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 6:48 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 65 of 265 (127150)
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


Not even most Christian Churches hold that as a literal interpretation and it is certainly not part of many Christian's Dogma.
That is an appeal to authority.
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.
I am quite sure that creation occured. I am quite sure evolution did'nt. I believe that way because of the evidence I have seen, not because I need to believe it for my religion. It would be a lot easier to say that the first couple verses are metaphorical, or an early myth that made it into the Bible somehow. However, because of the evidence I have seen, I cannot believe that. I the general consensus is, I believe, very wrong, and I want to do my part to fix that.
Loudmouth says:
The editor's are biased, and there bias is towards hypotheses that are supported by solid evidence and well structured experiments.
That isn't bias, that is being reasonable.
Guess what creation scientists do when they are rejected by journals? They whine about bias. Give me a break.
For the record, I wasn't whining about bias. I fully admit(ed) that in many instances, rejection is fully the fault of the creationist attempting to get published. However, if an editor thinks that evolution is a "fact" (which many evolutionists do), they would reject a paper which goes against the "facts" and supported creation.
Option three: The pantheon of greek and roman gods did it.
If evolution is disproven, or at least heavily discredited, this would be a valid option to put in the set of possibilities to be examined. I'll come back to this.
Option four: Time traveling humans went started the first life on earth.
This is a logical contradiction. Something cannot be its own cause.
Option five: Space aliens started life on earth.
How did the life of the space aliens come to be?
Option six: The Genesis Project, as seen in The Wrath of Khan, is real.
I am completely unfamiliar with this.
The Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn swished her tail and the earth was created.
This, with the Greek gods, would be an option to consider.
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.
No, but it shows that a non-naturalistic explanation is needed.
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?
Since these are non-naturalistic explanations, they are outside the range of science. Creation science, as I defined it, does not deal with these questions. After you have decided that there must have been a creation event, you must evaluate the different religions that have creation events. I have done so and believe christianity, as set forth by the Bible, is the true religion. However, that is not in the scope of creation science.
BS.
In the most extreme, someone could say that God creatd the world 6,000 years ago to appear as if it was billions of years old. That is not falsifiable.
Anyway, what changes in the earth and DNA would we be able to see? I am open to the idea that creation is falsifiable, it just never occured to me that that would be possible.
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
I would love to be able to test it. I want to know the truth, even if, heaven forbid, it would cause me to have to change my mind about something. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I am close-minded and hiding from the truth.
How about the evidence that supports evolution? Are you ignoring that as well?
You'll just have to take my word that I have looked at the evidence from both sides.
Did you come to your conclusions in the absence of christianity? Or did you believe in a literal creation due to your religious beliefs?
I grew/(am growing up) in a fundamentalist, YEC christian home, so no, I didn't come to my conslusions in the absence of christianity, and yes, when I was a little kid, I did believe creationism because of my religious beliefs. However, I have examined the evidence...
You can't prove that there isn't an Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn. Does that mean that the IFPU exists?
You misunderstood me. You asked why scientists don't try to prove evolution by disproving creation, and I answered that that is because you cannot disprove creationism. I was not claiming that creationism must be true because it cannot be proven false.
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.
If evolution is disproven/discredited, then some form of creation is required. It is then necessary to evaluate the different creation stories. There are other threads about this, but I believe, for various reasons, that the Bible is reliable, and so the Bible's story is the one I believe.
Creation science is what creation scientists do. Therefore, the way in which creation scientists practice their inquiry is exactly what creation science is.
Science is a method. You do not "do" science, you study nature using science. A field of science is not defined by what the scientists do, but what they are studying. If reseach pertaining to medicine science was dominated by charlatans (I'm not saying creationism is, but some creationists do cross the line), would that make the field of medicine not a valid field of 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...
You keep talking about "they," but we are not talking about people. I acknowledge that some creationists are unscientific and uninteligent, and put out really bad arguments. Those people, I think, drive me nuts worse than they do you, because not only are they being stupid, they give me a bad name. Anyway, we are not talking about "they," but creationism.
I have never, ever intentionally done that, and I try hard not to. You are assuming that because someone is trying to disprove something, they must be practicing deciet, or just plain stupidity. That is not the case.
In fact, I know that any argument I put forth will be attacked from all angles, and it is in my best interest to make the argument as accurate as possible; if I don't, the argument won't last half a second.
And just so you know, scientists are trying to disprove evolution as well.
Extremely few, if any, evolutionists are trying to disprove evolution. They may be doing something that might uncover evidence contradictory to evolution, but that does not mean that is what they are trying to do.
If creation scientists really wanted to falsify evolution they wouldn't be doing this. Instead, they would be...
So if creationists went about it the right way, it would be ok? That is exactly what I am trying to say.
I think I listed quite a few up above. Here are some more.
My question was: "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 you misunderstood my question, I am wondering what structure the opposition could take, not about the actual evidence. What I meant was this: Is there a way for a group of people to propose that evolution is false and try do prove that without earning the disrespect of the general scientific community? Or does the very act of purposely trying to disprove a hypothesis make one's conclusions irrelevant?
pink sasaquatch says:
Creationism is a view on origins, evolution is a theory about how life proceeds after origins. Therefore, they cannot be rival theories.
I am talking about a creation which not only created life, but created it essentially as we see it today. This type of creation addresses how life came to be how it is today, and that is what TOE does, also.
I'd be interested to hear your "evidence" against evolution, that confirms your faith in creationism.
I'll be happy to talk about this in other threads; the evidence for/against evolution is basically the point of this entire forum, and is too big a topic to be covered in one thread; especially one which already has a topic.
Exactly, creation scientists are biased, so they do not practice true scientific method.
You are talking about creation scientists, not creation science. Also, everyone in the world has biases. When doing scientific research, the point is to not let your biases interfere.
Thus there is an "intrinsic difference"
M-W online defines intrinsic as: "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing." How scientists in a field behave has nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of a field.
Again, what evidence?
I seems like you guys are itching to start some debate on the issue, instead of debating about debating about the issue. Once we are done meta-debating we can do some real debating (I can only handle one topic at a time). Something about genetics would be cool, I'll think about it.
Charles Knight says:
Why rely on common sense when we have science?
There are many things which are mostly or completely beyond the range of science. Historical events are a good example; yes, in my opinion, that includes creation.
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 science.
I haven't made claims about being able to scientifically examine creation, and I agree that the name is somewhat of an oxymoron.
That still leaves you with about 3600 Gods who could have done it.
I think I dealt with this above in this post; if not, come back with something more specific.
Holmes says:
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.
Ah, you are right. I hadn't realized that I did that (otherwise, obviously, I wouldn't have). Thank you for pointing that out. If evolution is disproven, we then have to examine possible options to find those that are probable, then from those find the one which is most probable. I think that evolution couldn't have happened and that the christian creation is the most probable alternative.
A scientist cannot rest on his laurels once he has finished criticizing an opponent's theory. That is NOT science.
Very true. I have reasons to believe (mainly the veracity of the Bible) that xian creation happened. However, after proving evolution wrong, I am not aware of any more that pure science can do, and as that is the topic of this thread, I am not going any further.
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.
You do have a point, but in my discussions/lurkings here a recuring theme has been that if a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is unscientific. Thus not attempting to falsify a hypothesisis is unscientific, so without falsification you do not have science. So unless you both hypothesizeand falsify, you are not practicing science. They are equal in importance.
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.
Falsification's importance to making a theory a leading theory might be nill, merely having a popularity contest among different theories isn't science. Science includes, among observing and hypothesizing, falsifying. So anything without falsification is by definition not science.
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.
M-W online defines pseudoscience as: "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" For something to be erroneously regarded as science, it must not be science, so it must be unscientific. Calling something pseudoscience is calling it unscientific.
Once again, starting with a preconception not derived from any evidence,
I have not started out without evidence. It is because of the evidence that I believe like I do. Besides, it matters nothing what my preconceptions are if they don't get in the way, which, as much as I can help it, they don't.
and then trying to knock out a theory (derived from evidence) which may run counter to it
If I am scientifically trying to falsify a hypothesis, then I am being scientific.
But in science there should be NO MOTIVES... beyond an interest in fitting the pieces of a subject together.
Do people researching cancer medications have some interest beyond figuring out an interesting puzzle? Yes. Do those motives interfere with there research? No. Are they scientists and scientific? Yes.
This is not a hypothesis. Or certainly not a singular one. There should be more description of entities and mechanisms.
I was vague; this should be more clear:
I believe in the God described in the Bible; I believe he created the earth as described in the Bible; I believe that the way creation is described in the Bible was a seven day event.
Second, they most certainly did have scripture to back them up
I had no clue they actually had scripture to back it up. (I return after a brief googling) Ah, they did. Sort of. I (obviously) disagree with how they interpreted those verses. However, that is irrelevant to this debate. The subject is whether or not creation science is actually science, and as has been established, more than just christians are creationists/ creation scientists.
It is sort of loaded for me to say there is NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO.
I can see that it could have been easily interpreted that way, which was not my intent. Loudmouth misunderstood it, too, so I can see that I should have been more clear.
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
I don't believe God is that inactive, although why he isn't more active I don't know.
...and shaping the universe to look totally opposite from the way they said they created things in their mythology.
I think the world is shaped in such a way as to agree with Genesis; this is what makes me a creationist and you an evolutionist.
Schrafinator says:
What about the statement of faith that all of the major Creation science organizations require their scientists to sign and adhere to?
This isn't a debate about creationist organizations (or at least I don't understand it to be), it is a debate on whether or not creation science can be scientific or not. It is about the science, not the scientists.
What place do actual evidence or falsification have to someone who believes that the Bible trumps all evidence in nature anyway?
I don't believe the Bible trumps nature, I believe the Bible agrees with nature. Furthermore, I do not believe that because that is what the Bible claims, but because that is what I can observe.
Sorry for taking so long; there was a lot of stuff to think about. Also, I'm going on a mountain biking trip in a couple days and a vacation shortly after that, so it might be a week or two before I post again. Have a good weekend everybody!

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by CK, posted 07-23-2004 9:26 PM jt has replied
 Message 68 by nator, posted 07-24-2004 1:20 AM jt has not replied
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 07-24-2004 7:35 AM jt has not replied
 Message 71 by jar, posted 07-24-2004 10:26 AM jt has replied
 Message 84 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 1:06 PM jt has not replied
 Message 91 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-27-2004 3:48 PM jt has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 66 of 265 (127152)
07-23-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jt
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


Well with that post - you have eliminated the christian god as being the creator of the universe - because according to your post he does not exist. If he does not exist, the bible must be lies and therefore Creation science (in the christian sense) must be false.
So that's this all wrapped up - it's rubbish.
ten bonus points to the person that can tell us why!
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-23-2004 08:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 9:19 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 10:41 PM CK has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 67 of 265 (127194)
07-23-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by CK
07-23-2004 9:26 PM


Well with that post - you have eliminated the christian god as being the creator of the universe - because according to your post he does not exist.
I think you are refering to where I said "Something cannot be its own cause." I also think that you think that, if the God of the Bible exists, he caused himself. These two beliefs are contradictory. However, I do not believe that God caused himself. Being eternal, he had no cause.
You might come back and say that everything must have a cause, so that is ilogical, too. But if you are a naturalist, which I will hazard the guess that you are, you believe either in eternal matter or a universe without a cause.
Are those bonus points redeemable for something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CK, posted 07-23-2004 9:26 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by CK, posted 07-24-2004 5:18 AM jt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 265 (127230)
07-24-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by jt
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


What about the statement of faith that all of the major Creation science organizations require their scientists to sign and adhere to?
quote:
This isn't a debate about creationist organizations (or at least I don't understand it to be), it is a debate on whether or not creation science can be scientific or not. It is about the science, not the scientists.
Well, these two organizations are the leading Creation "science" organizations. In fact, the founder of the Creation "science" movement, Henry Morris, founded CRS.
Each of these organizations count many scientists as "researchers" and publish articles meant to promote their view of the science.
If this isn't where Creation "science" can be found and critiqued, then perhaps you can direct me to where it can be found.
What place do actual evidence or falsification have to someone who believes that the Bible trumps all evidence in nature anyway?
quote:
I don't believe the Bible trumps nature, I believe the Bible agrees with nature. Furthermore, I do not believe that because that is what the Bible claims, but because that is what I can observe.
Tell me, if we were to find something in nature that you tell us ahead of time cannot be true according to the Bible, would you reject what the Bible says or the evidence from nature?
OTOH, why don't you predict what evidence in nature we should find that would be consistent with your Creation hypothesis.
Please also provide potential falsifications and other possible reasons the evidence appears as it does.
Whay don't we look at the flood?
What would we expect to see in the fossil record if the flood actually happened? What are the predictions of your Creation "science" flood hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 9:19 PM jt has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 69 of 265 (127269)
07-24-2004 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jt
07-23-2004 10:41 PM


What is a naturalist? I hear the term a lot here but don't encountered it in the UK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 10:41 PM jt has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 265 (127276)
07-24-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by jt
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


This is a logical contradiction. Something cannot be its own cause.
There is no logical contradiction to this when time or planar travel or influence is possible. You will need to show why this would be a contradiction if such possibilities were probable.
I want to add to this that you are being a bit uhmmmm... I guess self-serving is the word I am looking for. A human being the cause of the beginnings of life in general (or even specific "kinds" if the "creationist model" were true) is not exactly the same thing as something causing itself.
And since you have already brought up God not needing anything else (existing forever), to be scientific you will have to explain that one.
How did the life of the space aliens come to be?
Why maybe they always existed right? No one said they had to be of physical form. Or maybe they emerged from a dimension where life is readily and obviously generating from nonliving substances.
If you can posit a God existing beyond time and space eternally, and feel it is not open to challenge, then the possibility of space aliens is just as immune to your attacks.
I wish you had addressed some of the possibilities I had mentioned.
I am talking about a creation which not only created life, but created it essentially as we see it today.
Today as in when? Was it before all humans were different races? Right before you were born? As you were born?
We know... we have seen... life changing into other "kinds" during our time on earth. So there are things that did not exist "as created".
I think what you meant to say was you believe that there was a 6 day creation event ~6K years ago during which most species (or perhaps families) we see today were formed, plus the changes which naturally occurred given only 6K years of evolutionary process.
It seems to me the fact that life IS changing according to evolutionary theory, and must have been over the last 6K years, is undebatable. Even to a Xian scientist.
If evolution is disproven, we then have to examine possible options to find those that are probable, then from those find the one which is most probable. I think that evolution couldn't have happened and that the christian creation is the most probable alternative.
This is an example of bad science. You got it just about half right. Once a theory is disproven we are left with a field of possibilities, including the possibility it is a theory we haven't imagined yet.
But we do not get to simply say, well I think this one is the next probable. If it is scientific, it must come to the fore by using all the evidence in the best possible way. Given YOUR OWN STATEMENTS regarding the provability of Creationism, it is excluded from ever being a real candidate.
And this is something that always stumps me about people that advance Creationism as science, yet put their theory beyond science for protection. How can you be practicing science if the theory you are after is stated as being beyond our ability to prove/disprove or even gain evidence about. Science is the investigation of nature through EVIDENCE!
I have reasons to believe (mainly the veracity of the Bible) that xian creation happened.
But those are not scientific reasons, are they?
...a recuring theme has been that if a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is unscientific. Thus not attempting to falsify a hypothesisis is unscientific, so without falsification you do not have science. So unless you both hypothesizeand falsify, you are not practicing science. They are equal in importance.
You seem like a nice guy/gal, so I don't want to seem mean... but this does show an incredible lack of understanding of science, and logic.
The idea behind falsification is that there should be ways to falsify one's theory, otherwise it has been placed beyond judgement based on evidence (which means beyond scientific investigation).
As part of proving one's own hypotheses, experiments should be conducted around those points of falsification. And yeah, others should feel free to run experiments or collect data which hinge on those points.
But that is WHOLLY DIFFERENT than trying to falsify A COMPETING THEORY'S hypothesis, in order to boost your own: and that is EXACTLY what we are talking about here.
And ironically, the statement above actually cuts back on you. You have said repeatedly that creationist hypotheses (like the 6day event 6000 yrs ago) cannot be falsified. Well in order to be a scientific theory that is what has to be tested and able to be falsified.
So you seem to have got it wrong. It is not hypothesize one's own position and falsify the other person's hypothesis. It is creating a hypothesis in which there are ways to test (both prediction and falsification) of THAT hypothesis.
M-W online defines pseudoscience
Hmmmmmmmm... Yes and no. I guess my usage is a bit more refined. Remember the idea is that it is something mistakenly believed to be scientific. Well yeah I am suggesting it is mistakenly believed to be WHOLLY scientific.
Do you see the distinction? UNscientific, means it is not scientific at all (there are no real scientific methods involved). PSEUDOscience, means it is FALSE science, so there may be a bit of real science here and there, but not joined together to create a wholly real science.
This may be a very fine distinction, and you don't have to accept it as definitionally valid if you don't want to. But that is how I was using it.
I have not started out without evidence. It is because of the evidence that I believe like I do. Besides, it matters nothing what my preconceptions are if they don't get in the way, which, as much as I can help it, they don't.
I simply cannot believe this is true. What evidence (if the Bible and your Xian upbringing is excluded) suggested a 6 day creation ~6K years ago? How about a global flood which killed all the dinosaurs and neatly arranged them in separate layers?
You have stated your own "science" is that of attacking evolution, and NOT collecting evidence for your own theory. That means it had to come from somewhere OTHER than scientifically acceptable evidence, and thus your preconceptions have gotten in the way.
If I am scientifically trying to falsify a hypothesis, then I am being scientific.
Yes and no. If you meant in the fashion of scientists then you are right, if you mean actually being a scientist then you are wrong.
As a citizen I can arrest another citizen commiting a crime. In that way I am acting as a policeman (and my arrest may be just as legally valid), but it does not make me an official part of law enforcement, nor any of my other beliefs/actions those of the law enforcement community.
You may certainly investigate evolutionary theory as a layman and have scientific validity in your criticisms, but that does not validate any other theory you have or make it scientific (thus your POSITION scientific) unless it is also approached in the same manner as zeal as your criticisms.
Do people researching cancer medications have some interest beyond figuring out an interesting puzzle?
This is disengenuous. We were talking about motives that influence the pursuit of a theory and the manner of investigation.
It is true that a person may want to "cure cancer" or "make some big bucks in the pharmaceutical industry", but what then? They start from a neutral position on what can or cannot affect cancer cells.
Indeed, a scientist who walked in and said "we have to prove that Company B's theory of Cancer cell division is wrong, because our drug works on another theory (and then never proving that theory), is BAD SCIENCE."
When investigating a phenomenon, one must be free of motives in that investigation, not in life.
I believe in the God described in the Bible; I believe he created the earth as described in the Bible; I believe that the way creation is described in the Bible was a seven day event.
There are no descriptions of God in the Bible, neither is there a singular description of Genesis, much less mechanisms one can create any hypotheses about.
I mean where do I begin to falsify (or create predictions)? Well I guess I could start with simple dating techniques which at the very least are good for showing the earth (and humans living in groups) have been around far longer than 6000 years.
But then we run into Creationists who simply badmouth dating schemes (nevermind that it is not likely they are so off as to be wrong about the >6K nature of earth) and think that is enough to advance their theory.
I realize you like to separate yourself from these "bad" scientists. Okay then. The earth is clearly older than 6K from dating techniques. So the creation scenario you outlined is falisfied.
I (obviously) disagree with how they interpreted those verses. However, that is irrelevant to this debate. The subject is whether or not creation science is actually science, and as has been established, more than just christians are creationists/ creation scientists.
This is clearly beneath your capabilities. The question of creation science hinges on literal interpretations of the Bible. LITERAL. You cannot escape the passages that Xians used to oppose heliocentric theory by saying well you don't agree with the interpretation at this point in time.
Back then, LIKE TODAY, they were taking those passages as LITERALLY true. They were defending their theory back then as you are now.
Thus I have a very valid question. As you are a Xian, supporting Xian Creationism, I am asking why the passages in Genesis must be taken as literally true, while other passages once thought literal are now able to be seen as poetics?
I think the world is shaped in such a way as to agree with Genesis; this is what makes me a creationist and you an evolutionist.
Then why are you unable to advance your theory solely through the presentation of positive evidence? Poking holes in someone else's techniques, or portions of a larger theory, does nothing to suggest that the world is shaped in a way to agree with Genesis.
Please give me some positive evidence which creation scientists are unearthing which suggests Genesis as the sole probable explanation? And remember to start WITHOUT reference to a Bible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 9:19 PM jt has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 265 (127290)
07-24-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by jt
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


First, can you use the little red button to respond to each post, that way someone knows when you have responded to them.
quote:
jar said:
Not even most Christian Churches hold that as a literal interpretation and it is certainly not part of many Christian's Dogma.
and jt responded:
That is an appeal to authority.
Nonsense. That is a statement of fact. It can be independantly tested and verified or refuted. I provided a list of churches in the US that have stated their opinions. You can argue with the list or provide one of your own, but it is hardly an appeal to authority.
You went on to say:
I am quite sure that creation occured.
Well, surprise, I bet every Evolutionist would agree that Creation occured. At least those that exist would agree. Evolution does not deal with creation. You know that.
It would be a lot easier to say that the first couple verses are metaphorical, or an early myth that made it into the Bible somehow. However, because of the evidence I have seen, I cannot believe that.
So are you saying that the first couple verses of Genesis should be taken literally?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 9:19 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jt, posted 08-05-2004 11:33 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 265 (127357)
07-24-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
07-20-2004 1:31 PM


bump
Hangdawg, I would love replies to messages 25, 26, and 27 in this thread, if you would be so kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 07-20-2004 1:31 PM nator has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 73 of 265 (127429)
07-25-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 3:59 PM


US half illiterate
Greetings all,
Robert - "50% of America say evolution is wrong. In 2004 this should not be if you are right."
Hardly a strong argument, considering that about 50% of Americans are functionally ILLITERATE -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.covinaliteracy.org/facts.htm
Creationism is largely unheard of in Europe or Australasia - it's mainly known in the US, which rates poorly in education standards.
Iasion
This message has been edited by Iasion, 07-25-2004 04:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 3:59 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 74 of 265 (127525)
07-25-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
07-20-2004 12:50 PM


Sorry to have ditched the debate.
Science is evidence-driven. That is, theories are developed from the evidence found in nature; they are frameworks for understanding the evidence.
Right.
The evidence that he kept seeing led him to developing his hypothesis of common descent of organisms--descent with modification. In "Origin of Species", Darwin shows how very scientific a thinker he was, because he lists weaknesses in his theory, and also potential falsifications that, if found, would render his theory incorrect.
I don't doubt that evolution is a very good plausible scientific theory. However, the possibility of it has not been proven as fact, and due to the nature of the evidence, it very well may never be proven.
There have been fossil falsifications of the evolutionary theory found, but once found they somehow no longer become falsifications or are explained away. It's as if the evolutionary theory itself evolves and adapts to fill the niche that exists in everyone's mind: the need to understand our origins.
I realize this may be a very inflammatory sentence, but let's move on.
By contrast, Creation science begins not with evidence, but with the conclusion; "the bible is factually correct in all things regarding nature".
Yes.
This makes Creation 'science' revalatory in nature, not evidence-driven. They believe thay can know the conclusion before they ever even look at any evidence. This is backwards to the way real sciecne is conducted.
A teacher of a geography may tell his class that there is a country named england. The students accept his word as truth. Later they may encounter evidence that supports this as true. It is the same way with creation science. Although I think I already know the truth, this does not make it impossible to objectively evaluate facts.
For example, in the biological evolution debate on common pseudo genes, I freely admitted that with the given explanations, evolution from a common ancestor is the best explanation assuming such evolution is possible. However, I cannot rule out the possibility of another explanation that I have not yet discovered.
This is how science should work. Search for ALL possible explanations of the facts. My belief that eventually explanations consistent with and supportive of a recent creation and flood will surface is no different than your belief that the same will happen for the TOE.
Since I am biased left and you are biased right, and both of us are basically capable of looking at and honestly evaluating evidence, there will be a competition between our two interpretations of the evidence. Competition is always good for bringing out the truth, which is why we have courts. Right now the Judge and Jury are all biased towards the prosecution and there is no one willing and able to step up to the defense.
Sometimes evidence is presented that looks as though it supports the premise of the Creation 'scientists', but upon further investigation this evidence is shown to be in error, misinterpreted, taken out of context, or other, better-fitting evidence is ignored or handwaved away.
I recognize that much evidence exists that is interpreted to support the evolutionary theory. Those who believe it is true are not morons. But facts can be interpreted in different ways. Right now, everyone interprets facts to fit the evolutionary model. Scientists, being so sure that evolution is true, have forgotten that many things are still unproven assumptions. It is still an unproven assumption that all strata is the result of billions of years of deposition. Some evidence that would confirm this as fact is also based on assumptions. For some evidence that would confirm this, an alternative explanation has never been sought. It is my desire as a creation scientist to explore plausible alternative explanations of the evidence.
Additionally, there is no way to correct for mistakes in Creation 'science", because there is no way to test the hypothese. In fact, Creation "science" does not propose any new ideas for testing; to them, the idea is not to challenge or test anything about their ideas. They are only interested in cherry-picking evidence to support any assertion they make.
Give me time. I'll be working on the HP theory. I know what you mean by cherry picking, but I think it is unfair to imply that evolutionists do not also do this.
Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Creation "science" is not conducted within the rules of legitimate science, so can be considered a pseudoscience.
Agreed to a certain extent. I think there are many well meaning but misguided people who round up every bit of evidence no matter how dubious and add their interpretation to use as a tool of evangelism. I don't think it's ever good to witness to people by being dishonest. I'm sure I'm probably guilty of this myself, however, participating in this site has been a good experience, and I will try to be completely open and honest about all evidence in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-20-2004 12:50 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 7:10 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 07-25-2004 8:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 8:37 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 07-26-2004 4:42 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 81 by nator, posted 07-26-2004 11:06 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 265 (127533)
07-25-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 6:16 PM


interpretations and evidence
Would you like me to start a thread specifically to allow you to show the evidence and what you consider a good alternative interpretation?
I think we could use one in the dates and dating for example. There are things in there that no one has offered a working alternative explanation for. Would you like to be the one to try?
The facts are Dawg, that there are some very powerful pieces of evidence for the age of the earth. There have been NO alternative explanations for them. You can hunt around in creationist sites and you will come up dry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 6:16 PM Hangdawg13 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