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

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. 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. 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! But those are not scientific reasons, are they? 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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)

I'm interested in seeing some examples. Unfortunately this seems to be the rallying cry of the creation "scientist"... what science SHOULD be. But it isn't, and it's your tough luck if you do not like where the evidence is leading investigations.While it is true that anyone can hold on to their secret fantasy "possibility", it is errant to believe science is served by treating all "possibilities" as equal. Right now evidence heavily supports Evo and not Creo. Thus Evo is not just possible, but most probable (even if mechanisms remain relatively open).Do you really believe we should be allocating resources to Egyptian creation myths, Greek myths, Native American myths, Space Alien myths? I don't. According to a literal interpretation of the Bible all virgins may be identified by having intact hymens, but this is not the case.Since there is this clear scientific flaw within the Bible, particularly with regard to a designed component of one of his creations, it is also possible that factual statements in other parts of the bible are also flawed.Just a reminder that you also ditched another debate, and I am waiting for your concession.

---

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