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

JT - you've spent a lot of time in this thread defending creation science by claiming that any criticisms leveled at creation science are only true of somecreation scientists.Please provide an example of a single valid scientific report by a "creation scientist," preferrably in a peer-reviewed journal.Doing so would prove your point that a creation scientist is capable of practicing real science.Thanks.

quote:

---

I'm more or less tossing ideas around and seeing what fits, and seeing what the evo reaction is. I only wish that everyone would do the same.

---

Before we can toss around an idea, we first need to know three things:1. The evidence that supports the idea.2. How we can test the idea.3. How we can falsify the idea.Without those three things we can't do anything. It is like tossing around the idea that UFO's are shooting mind control rays from outerspace causing us to see a blue sky when in fact it is green. Without some basis in reality, or some way to test it, it isn't worth thinking about.

quote:

---

I am just saying it would be nice if there was some competition.

---

There was, and it lost. The competition lost because it was not able to explain the contradictory evidence without relying on ad hoc hypotheses. In fact, a young earth lost out before Darwin or Wallace ever published their works on evolution. It could be said that Darwin's and Wallace's ideas stemmed from the work of creationists who found finely detailed sorting in the fossil record, sorting that led to the creationists concluding that the earth was old. For the same reason, there is no competition for the Germ Theory, the theory of Gravity, The Theory of Thermodynamics, etc. In science, if there are two competing theories one wins out by the weight of the evidence. A theory doesn't hold out just because it has popular or religious backing; it must have evidencial backing.

quote:

---

I mean evos have had millions and millions of man-hours put into their theory, so I cannot hope to compete,

---

And many of those evos are christians. You would think that if there was a conspiracy to hide falsifying evidence that christian evolutionists would have come out with it by now. Also, it shows the egotistical nature of creationists who think that they can overturn all of those man-hours of work by using such simple arguments, such as "lunar dust" and "a shrinking sun", not to mention "no transitional fossils". Somehow, having a degree in eletrical engineering in one hand and Genesis in the other allows one to flat out ignore millions of man hours of work. But then again, it is entertaining and, dare I say, intellectually stimulating to have such open-minded, logically bent creationists as yourself to stop by on occasion. Hope you continue to contribute in the biologically themed threads.

OK. I understand long time your saying Science doesn't prove anything.
And that those who present science to the public are the ones misunderstanding.Then the statement in every school book and science show should be. Science has not proven evolution is true. Period.
I submitt this is never said and the opposite is said.You can not have your cake and eat it too.Your separating yourself (science) from society in how truth is concluded is not how society understands it.
And as a creationist we deal with teaching society about origins and come up against "evolution is proven by science"And evolutionists do ,PS, I insist say evolution is the truth in the same way as the laws of gravity.
And the laws of gravity are teached as the truth.
PS your error is trying to have evolution, for all intents and purposes as a proven fact and still deny you say its proven. And so disqualify criticism.
With respect this is the rub.

Ok, well, prove it. Show me where it says in any textbook being used in schools that "evolution is proven true beyond any doubt." True, but society is wrong. Right. The laws of gravity are as tentative as any other scientific theory. Hence, their total revision by Einstein in the 50's. Prove it.How can you say they're being taught as "truth" when everyone knows Newton's "Laws" were replaced by Einstein's theory?

OK excellent. I asked for someone too prove evolution is a scientic subject.
You gave an excellent definition of the scientific method. This is what creationists also say.You didn't actually prove evolution fit into this definition but no matter.Your part "...and then test those hypotheses..."etc.Thats it. Testing them by confirming or falsifying them with objective evidence.And we say this does not and can not take place. And this is why evolutionaty subjects do not qualify as scientific subjects.We agree this far.
Now what?Perhaps you could show why they do indeed employ the scientific
method and we are wrong in saying they don't.
Itb is I guess difficult.
Regards

quote:

---

And evolutionists do ,PS, I insist say evolution is the truth in the same way as the laws of gravity.

---

And evolutionists do insist that the theory of gravity is as true as the theory of evolution, since both are tentative, accurate with all known evidence, and observable. Where is your problem again?

quote:

---

And evolutionists do ,PS, I insist say evolution is the truth in the same way as the laws of gravity.

---

The truth being that the theory of gravity is consistent with all known evidence and observations, just like the theory of evolution. However, you are extending the meaning of "truth" within science to the more general term used by the public. Just as in court cases, when somebody is found to be guilty by a jury does not mean that they did the crime, only that the evidence shows they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, how can someone be guilty and walk away when evidence clears them of a crime? Even the public knows the difference between a tentative truth and an absolute truth, that is except for a few in the minority like yourself.

quote:

---

You gave an excellent definition of the scientific method. This is what creationists also say.

---

So you agree that creationism is falsified since it is contrary to the evidence?

quote:

---

Your part "...and then test those hypotheses..."etc.

​

Thats it. Testing them by confirming or falsifying them with objective evidence.

​

And we say this does not and can not take place. And this is why evolutionaty subjects do not qualify as scientific subjects.

---

Yes we can. We can look at the human genome, for example, and claim that evolution would be refuted if the human genome contains large stretches of DNA that are identical to a bird genome. Are you telling me we can't test this? Are you that ignorant?Evolution is testable, whether you like it or not. Evolution has been tested, is being tested, and will continue to be tested. The discovery of DNA is probably the biggest test of the theory so far, and it continues to pass with flying colors. However, creationism was tested 200 years ago, and it failed miserably. No one could reconcile the detailed and sorted fossil layers with the stories in Genesis, and so it was dropped once and for all. At least within Science.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could show why they do indeed employ the scientific
method and we are wrong in saying they don't.

---

There are 29 tests, and potential falsifications, of the theory of evolution found here. You could also search the extended catalog of publicly available gene sequences and try to find DNA that is identical in divergent species, such as snails and bacteria. Or, you could try and show that a daughter species is found consistently beneath a parent species in the fossil record. Please tell me how these aren't tests of the theory of evolution.

Robert: Again, the problem you seem to have is with some teaching or communicating science, and not with true science itself.I looked around briefly on the web for excerpts from public school textbooks on evolution, but unfortunately came up short. (I did find countless pro-creation websites declaring that evolution is taught as truth - hopefully you've actually checked several textbooks before you made your "never said" statement, and are not just going by biased secondary sources.)Could you please post some text book excerpts that say evolution is proven and fact?But the point I really want to make:
If a better job was done teaching the basis of science and the scientific method, we wouldn't have to worry about people misunderstanding and misrepresenting statements regarding science. In this case, if students are required to understand what a "theory" is, then we don't have to concern ourselves with qualifying each and every theory as neither "proven" nor "fact", since the students would know that no theory can be either.Some states/districts have attempted to put a "band-aid" on text-books by adding a disclaimer to each book stating that evolution is "just an unproven theory". There are multiple problems with this, to name a few:
- It furthers misunderstanding of the definition of "theory".
- It detracts from the strength of the theory of evolution (strength from confirmation by countless experiments and observations).
- It distinguishes evolution from all other theories.Why is evolution "just a theory," but not any other theory? Should every theory taught include your qualification "Science has not proven _______ is true"? Hopefully you realize that some religious groups want to remove the Germ Theory of Disease from science curricula because is clashes with their beliefs - would you support the removal or qualification of the germ theory? Why or why not?The theory of evolution has been confirmed by the scientific method, and has yet to be falsified. The theory relies on no supernatural concepts. This is why it is taught as science, because it is science. I haven't erred in this respect. I have never stated or implied that the theory of evolution was a proven fact.You are levelling criticism at me personally based on your conception of popular beliefs, beliefs that I do not hold or support.I am wholly against the intentional or unintentional misrepresentation or misteaching of science to the masses - thus I'd get just as angry as you at someone publishing textbooks stating that evolution has been proven.Perhaps if you send me one of the examples you have of textbooks making this mistatement, and I'm outraged enough, I'll write a complaint to the publishers.

All textbooks present the origin of things as factually as they present the origins of the U.S.A.I know crashfrog you've often said society is wrong on thinking evolution is presented as proven.
But you are wrong in why they think this. It is acedemia's actions and effect on all presentations of the subject tha is responsible.When i refer to the laws of gravity I mean it as everyone uses the term.
Rob

Can you give us an example of how they present the origins of life?

OK you brought up about a court case. Excellent something to grasp.As you said" somebody found to be guilty does not mean they did the crime, only that the evidence shows they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
ANDINDEED this is for all intents and purposes the same thing. The conclusion is that the truth is he is guilty. Not just more likely then not as in a civil trial. The standard of evidence is the point.Your separation of absolute and tentative truth is not thr real world of acedemia (on origins0 and the public.
Creationists contend with the "truth" of evolution. Period.Again as I said before you are trying to have your truth of origins as a result of a SPECIAL standard of evidence dominate AND when we challenge you we get the response "Its tentative" or "we never said it was proven".
Somethings wrong here.

You give the example of the human genome.
I was making my point about how we say evolutionary subjects are not science but history. I was trying to make this clear about what we say. Your rebuttal is another subject.OK I will read the 29 tests.
Yet lets remember and understand evolution etc makes great claims and conclusions of the great field of life here and before. If all these 29 stood the test they would be minor cases in dealing with such a subject. When we say evolutionary subjects aren't testablewe mean about all the great and numerous conclusions not bits and pieces.
HOwever it is progress to see that tests are essential for evolution to claim to be scientific.
Rob

But the conclusions are based on the tests of "bits and pieces", so this makes no sense. Your kidding right? Have you not read a single thing that has been written previously just in this thread (let alone all the other discussions on other threads as well)?

Oh! I know this is a bit off topic but the Eureka just hit me. Brad is a computer program! A natural language parser someone is inputting some of these articles and then posting them here! Cool, kewl? Well, a tiny bit amusing.lfen

My brother Greg McFall believes in Chomsky ideas. I am not much of a comptuer programmer nor is any person (a program). I do not even use this idea though if I was to program i might do some Perl with it. I hope this cleared up the confusion for others (and me) at yet again a claim about me not being human. I am!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-04-2004 04:32 PM