Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 151 of 265 (131849)
08-09-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by jt
08-07-2004 11:04 PM


Re: Come on
The way I see this is that scientists are doing science to answer a great many question in many fields. To do this they use observation, experimentation, math, modeling etc. Evolution is being used in such diverse fields as astronomy, geology, and biology because it is serving the function that a scientific theory is supposed to. It helps organize the data, it provides explanatory models that then generate further experiments, explorations etc. Scientist will drop the ToE if and when it not longer works, when it's falsified.
Creationist seem to rarely take into account the amount of science being done. Some scientist are doing brilliant work, others mediocre, and others trivial to bad.
Creationist seem to regard science as another "bible" of false revelation that needs only to have one thing wrong and then like the fundamentalist claim "if one thing in the bible is not true how can any of be true" ToE will be disproved and the true faith in an old old book supposed the true book will be defended, unless you are mormon, or muslim, etc.
Religion is an old and to some humans an emotionally appealing way of thinking about self, life, and the world. Science is a different approach. Religion is a useful tool for controlling people or oneself by emotional beliefs. Science is a useful tool for knowledge and technology.
Creation "science" is not coming out of the experimental work, it's not a theory that is being used by productive scientists to advance science. It's an attempt by those with emotional investment in a world view to defend their desire for the bible to be literally true by attempting to falsify the current paradigns of science. That is a religious undertaking and not a scientific one. Science doesn't do a good job of supporting our emotional agendas. Creation "science" to the extent it's religion and not science is useful to religionist to support their belief in their ancient books.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jt, posted 08-07-2004 11:04 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM lfen has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 152 of 265 (131947)
08-09-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jt
08-06-2004 8:33 PM


JT writes:
I am going to get a BS in bioengineering, then a Phd in the genome sciences, and maybe later a Phd in cellular biology. I hope to become a research professor at a major university; I will be working in a lab, observing, hypothesizing, and testing, learning more about the mechanisms which control the replication and modification of DNA, and maybe discovering new ones.
Nice ambition - however, as a point of career advice, you won't need two PhDs. The department you receive your PhD has little to do with your training - the lab and project you choose to your dissertation research in defines the bulk of your training. It will be very easy for you to get training in both genomics and cell bio in a single PhD, and you would learn very little extra doing two PhDs. In fact, today you'd be hard-pressed to find a lab exclusively doing cell bio or genomic research in isolation of the other.
I think that the area of genetics holds many problems for the TOE... If I did let [my bias] get in the way, my research wouldn't be worth peanuts; that would defeat my goal of doing valid research which shows flaws with the TOE.
JT, you have to be very careful - If you follow the path of training you outline here, you will learn much about the scientific method and the basis of molecular evolution. If you hold fast to your current conception that "genetics holds many problems for the TOE", you will be denying the underpinnings of biology and science in general, and so will not be much of a scientist.
And since your "goal of doing valid research which shows flaws with the TOE" is very biased, that holds problems as well...
I've heard your ambition expressed by other young creos - that they'll get a PhD in some field of molecular biology, do some honest research, and prove the theory of evolution wrong.
I think the misconception is that all of the scientists currently working in genetics accept evolution of faith and therefore are blind to any flaws - and the follow up misconception that just one person with a creo-perspective and scientific training could expose these flaws.
The truth is, the theory of evolution is put to the test every day in thousands of labs, by scientists who realize they would become more famous and renowned than Darwin overnight if they proved his theory incorrect.
Science isn't ignoring all of the flaws of evolution, it is actively looking for them.
I'd be interested to hear your list of examples that results in your conclusion, "genetics holds many problems for the TOE," perhaps in another thread when you have time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:33 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 265 (131965)
08-09-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Lithodid-Man
08-07-2004 9:30 AM


Re: Media
quote:
The fear is that I will misspeak or be unclear and have that immortalized, especially because of the public and political attention on this project.
And even a greater fear is that the media will twist your words into something spectacular, but still inaccurate. Just one personal example (and it had nothing to do with science). I local news station had a roving camera crew asking people if the Aryan Nation should be allowed to march in a town in northern Idaho. Paraphrasing, I answered "Yes, I believe that the our freedom of speech should extend to everyone even if the speech is hateful or unpopular." Guess what made it on the news . . . My face and me saying "Yes". The clipped off the rest of my statement and left my views on racism up in the air. I have seen other scientists selectively quoted by the media in an effort to sensationalize an issue. Sometimes ratings supersede accuracy. This is why someone should get their info straight from the scientists mouth instead of the filtered soundbytes we recieve through the popular media. Real science is written about in the primary literature (as I am sure you know already).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-07-2004 9:30 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 265 (131966)
08-09-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by mike the wiz
08-06-2004 9:45 PM


quote:
Why are they called scientists?
Because their conclusions and hypotheses were constructed using the scientific method. Someone can be both a real scientists and a creationist. The difference is in how they reach their conclusions, not the title behind their name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by mike the wiz, posted 08-06-2004 9:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 155 of 265 (132028)
08-09-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jt
08-06-2004 8:36 PM


(I think that the area of genetics holds many problems for the TOE), but it will not get into my way when I am researching.
JT,
Genetics holds many problems and that makes it a good area to do science in. Relgion and science as activities arise from similiar human needs to understand and expand control. But they are very different approaches. Particularly revealed religions that take the word of one or more humans that they speak for god or have written for god has a very different attitude towards the universe than science has.
Falsifying a theory or contradictory findings doesn't disprove science. Science doesn't make a claim that at one point in history a particulary verbal account is the eternal truth. Science is a process not an authoritarian pronouncement held to be immune from fault or criticism.
You have chosen a very interesting area to study, may you make some interesting and useful discoveries.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:36 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 2:04 PM lfen has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 265 (132044)
08-09-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jt
08-06-2004 8:33 PM


quote:
(I think that the area of genetics holds many problems for the TOE)
  —JT
This would actually be a good topic within this thread on how "creation science" can use the scientific method to distinguish between a creation event and evolution.
Perhaps JT (or anyone else up to the challenge) can propose how the study of genetics can do one or any the following:
1. Provide evidence that DNA similarities are not due to common ancestory.
2. How DNA is insufficient as a mutable source for morphologic change over time.
3. How the patterns and sequence in DNA is better ascribed to a creative event than to slow mutation and selection over time.
4. What is the separating line between large differences in morphology and speciation events at the genetic level.
5. What are the created kinds, and how can we distinguish between them using genetics?
What objective tests can we run that will separate the theory of creationism from the theory of evolution. What we seem to be running into is that creationist claim that creationism is just a "different interpretation" yet their predictions, or actually post hoc reasoning, simple takes the supporting evidence from evolution and selectively places into an unsupported model. Take the HERV sequences, for example. Creationists claim that God used these viral insertions to design organisms. They then claim that even though these insertions support a common creator this is only a secondary effect, not the primary mechanism of creation. If this is so, then there should be a way to distinguish the primary mechanism (creation) from the secondary, and supposedly false, effect of DNA viral insertions supporting previously constructed cladistic trees.
What are the tests within genetics that can separate the effects of a creation from the supposedly false scheme of evolution? Are these tests subjective, such as "It looks designed", or are they specific predictions such as "If these two were created separately, then their sequences should have such-and-such characteristics"? If creationism is the correct theory, then someone should be able to make bold statements about genetic similarities between separate species, specific statements about genetic diversity within species, and predictions about mitochondrial DNA. Anybody care to take a stab?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:33 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 2:04 PM Loudmouth has replied

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


Message 157 of 265 (132179)
08-09-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by nator
08-09-2004 10:34 AM


Young Earth Creationism, as a scientific claim, or group of scientific claims, has been falsified.
Let's pretend that I had been serious about the stars being only a mile high(I still can't believe you thought I was). Even though the falsity of that statement is a complete, bona-fide, nobody even thinks about it thinking it false fact, you did not just assert its veracity. You asked me for evidence I had, then pointed out a serious problem with my belief. This was the most effective way to respond to me about that. Actually, I am suprised at how respectful you were.
What I don't understand is why you are not like that with the YEC issue, even though it is an issue far less settled than the star-distance issue.
Additionally, since many of the claims of YEC appeal to the supernatural, they cannot be falsified, and thus are not scientific.
I completely concur.
These are the definitions I like the best:
I had to laugh when I noticed that your definition defines creationism as psuedoscience, automatically winning the debate. Oh well; I'm going to just ignore that part. (After fully reading the definition, I realized that they were talking about a pseudoscience; oh well [again])
Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth
This is not falsifiable, so this part is not scientific.
(b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.
This, also, isn't scientific; it falls in the fields of literary criticism and theology.
The way you define creationism is fully congruent with your belief that creationism is unscientific. I now see that we were debating because we were using one word two ways. I meant creationism as anti-evolutionism; I am now unsure if I was using the word correctly. If your definition of "creation science" is correct, and it quite possibly is, then I can't defend (from charges of unscientificness[which isn' a word{apologies for the nested parenthesies}]) "creation science."
I have been agreeing with you all along (I think), I just didn't know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 08-09-2004 10:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2004 1:08 AM jt has replied
 Message 172 by nator, posted 08-10-2004 6:50 PM jt has replied

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


Message 158 of 265 (132180)
08-09-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by lfen
08-09-2004 11:16 AM


It helps organize the data, it provides explanatory models that then generate further experiments, explorations etc.
This is not the function of a theory; the function is to accurately describe reality. Analogy: is the function of a car to keep you in a comfortable temperature, play music, and have comfy seats? No. Those are things a good car does, but unless the car can transport you, it is not fulfilling its function.
Creationist seem to regard science as another "bible" of false revelation that needs only to have one thing wrong...
You are confusing the terms "science" and "evolution."
Religion is an old and to some humans an emotionally appealing way of thinking about self, life, and the world. Science is a different approach.
Religion is defined by M-W online as: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity."
Science is defined as: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method."
Science is not a "different approach" to viewing life - it is a way of viewing the physical world, while religion is a way of viewing the non-physical world. The two are not mutually exclusive, they inhabit different domains.
Also, religion being "to some emotionally appealing" has no bearing on its truth. Science also is "to some emotionally appealing." But it doesn't matter, because they don't overlap. Someone can be religious and scientific at the same moment.
By the way, you are equating creationism and religion, then attacking religion. Creation is a tenet of some religions, not religion itself.
Religion is a useful tool for controlling people or oneself by emotional beliefs. Science is a useful tool for knowledge and technology.
You are calling creationism religion, then attacking religion as unscientific (who claimed it was?). Red herring.
That is a religious undertaking and not a scientific one.
Ahh, here is where you switch "creationism" and "religion," and make the inference that creationism is emotionally based. Oh well.
Anyway, what is unscientific about testing a theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by lfen, posted 08-09-2004 11:16 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by lfen, posted 08-10-2004 1:15 AM jt has replied
 Message 163 by lfen, posted 08-10-2004 1:24 AM jt has not replied
 Message 169 by NosyNed, posted 08-10-2004 2:29 PM jt has replied

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


Message 159 of 265 (132181)
08-09-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by pink sasquatch
08-09-2004 2:27 PM


Nice ambition - however, as a point of career advice, you won't need two PhDs...
Thanks, I appreciate it.
If you hold fast to your current conception that "genetics holds many problems for the TOE", you will be denying the underpinnings of biology and science in general, and so will not be much of a scientist.
The underpinning of science is the scientific method, not a theory; the underpinnings of biology are facts about how organism work, not how they came to exist.
Also, disagreeing with a theory is not being a bad scientist.
And since your "goal of doing valid research which shows flaws with the TOE" is very biased, that holds problems as well...
If you are saying that my bias will get in the way of my research, you are mistaken; I can't let it. I don't want to waste my life doing bogus "science." And if my research is valid, what problem is there?
I think the misconception is that all of the scientists currently working in genetics accept evolution of faith and therefore are blind to any flaws
Not blind, but a little fuzzy. The flaws are not considered nearly as much as they should be, and solutions for the flaws are accepted without enough scrutiny.
...and the follow up misconception that just one person with a creo-perspective and scientific training could expose these flaws.
My goal is to find new flaws, and better articulate currently known flaws.
The truth is, the theory of evolution is put to the test every day in thousands of labs, by scientists who realize they would become more famous and renowned than Darwin overnight if they proved his theory incorrect.
I disagree with you about the alacrity of most scientists to disprove the TOE; the general scientific community is much more actively seeking to elaborate on the TOE. I have read many stories about courses evolution could have taken, stories about as-of-yet untested hypothesies. I have not, aside of in creationist literature, read of a single untested hypothesis which would be damaging to evolutionary theory.
I'd be interested to hear your list of examples that results in your conclusion, "genetics holds many problems for the TOE," perhaps in another thread when you have time...
I wasn't meaning to assert that for debate, I was talking about a personal hunch which has caused me to choose a field of research. I have ideas for potential arguments in that area, but I have so little knowledge of genetics that I would lose any debate about it. After I read some books about it (I'm reading a cellular biology textbook right now), I'd be happy to debate about it.
I have to go clean the kitchen now, I'll get to the other posts tomorrow, maybe.
This message has been edited by JT, 08-09-2004 10:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-09-2004 2:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-10-2004 1:13 AM jt has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 160 of 265 (132226)
08-10-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by jt
08-09-2004 11:57 PM


I meant creationism as anti-evolutionism; I am now unsure if I was using the word correctly.
You've reminded me of something that we evolutionists might lose sight of; it's possible to be a scientific anti-evolutionist.
It's just not easy. There's a vast weight of evidence to explain, no better theories to explain it, and a total lack of truly disconfirming evidence for evolution.
But it is possible to oppose evolution as a scientist. Such a person would not be a creationist. They would essentially have to hold the position "evolution is currently the most accurate theory that explains the history of life on Earth; however, I'm going to be the guy that comes up with the more accurate theory."
There's nothing unscientific about that; in fact that's a goal I think you'll find many of us are already behind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 8:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 161 of 265 (132227)
08-10-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by jt
08-09-2004 11:57 PM


The underpinning of science is the scientific method, not a theory; the underpinnings of biology are facts about how organism work, not how they came to exist.
I think you are missing what I was trying to communicate - you are correct about the scientific method.
The theory of evolution has been tested countless times by the scientific method, and the results: confirmed countless times by the scientific method, and not falsified by the scientific method.
If you look at the science of the theory of evolution and say it is wrong, you are stating that despite the scientific method-based evidence. Therefore, you are denying the scientific method by denying the theory of evolution before falsifying evidence is found.
Does that make more sense?
Also, disagreeing with a theory is not being a bad scientist.
Correct, but disagreeing with a theory based on scientific evidence for non-scientific reasons makes a very bad scientist indeed.
I disagree with you about the alacrity of most scientists to disprove the TOE; the general scientific community is much more actively seeking to elaborate on the TOE.
But that's just it - no true scientist is trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution - but they are constantly testing the theory of evolution. Your statements again reveal your bias, and some slight misunderstanding of how science proceeds. A true scientist does not enter into a field to "prove" or "disprove" a theory, they enter to "test" a hypotheses or theory, and based on the evidence they confirm, falsify, or revise hypotheses and theories. Regarding the theory of evolution - it is true that it has only been elaborated upon, because of testing without falsification, not because of bias in testing.
I have read many stories about courses evolution could have taken, stories about as-of-yet untested hypothesies.
I would be really interested in hearing one of these untested hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 8:27 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 162 of 265 (132229)
08-10-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by jt
08-09-2004 11:57 PM


JT
Would you accept putting it this way? Not all religions posit creationism, or YEC. That is not all religious are creationist, but aren't all creationist are religious?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 8:27 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 163 of 265 (132232)
08-10-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by jt
08-09-2004 11:57 PM


JT
Would you accept putting it this way? Not all religions posit creationism, or YEC. That is not all religious are creationist, but aren't all creationist religious?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jt, posted 08-09-2004 11:57 PM jt has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 265 (132295)
08-10-2004 7:45 AM


Well, maybe, but what makes me uncomfortable is the question of what constitutes creation. Creationists can reasonably argue that the big bang is a kinda creation.
The nub of the matter is that creationists claim to know this BECAUSE they have special access to supernatural, otherworldly knowledge, rather than BECAUSE they have observed nature and constructed a model.

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 8:34 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 165 of 265 (132382)
08-10-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by lfen
08-09-2004 6:18 PM


But they are very different approaches.
Yes, they are very different, but they do not overlap (most of the time). Religion deals with supernatural, science with natural. I admit, some religions (I'm not going to name names here...)
have tenets which can be examined using science. If science showed those claims to be false, there would be a science vs. religion occurrence. However, that is the only time such a thing happens.
Falsifying a theory or contradictory findings doesn't disprove science.
I do not try to disprove science - I try to show what I believe are fatal flaws with evolution. Evolution is not equal to Science.
You have chosen a very interesting area to study, may you make some interesting and useful discoveries.
I appreciate your support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by lfen, posted 08-09-2004 6:18 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 08-10-2004 2:35 PM jt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024