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

Let me rephrase myself: you cannot just make an unsupported statement like that. Not only do you not support your statement, even if you did, you would not be able to in a single post. In fact, the scope of that statement is such that there are ENTIRE FORUMS DEDICATED TO DEBATING IT.I am not saying you are wrong - I couldn't back that statement up in a single post, either. What I am saying is that I disagree with you, but acknowledge that you are quite possibly a smart, scientificall and logically minded, well educated individual. I also acknowledge that the issue is not settled.What you are doing is assuming that I am stupid because I disagree with you. That is tempting and understandable, but it is also arrogant and rude. If I am wrong, you can (in other threads)show me the evidences and arguments; don't just tell me that I am unscientific and ignorant.I am not mad or offended (much), because I understand where you are coming from, but I would appreciate your stopping.Thanks,
JTThis message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 06:46 PM

Yes. I think know where you are heading with this; something about literalism. But I'll let you phrase your own argument instead of answering it before you actually get there. Fire away.

A litle over a mile. By the way, did you know that limits on the heights of skyscrapers are there so they don't catch fire from touching a star? That, by the way, is why no skyscraper over one half a mile high can be built. The top would melt.

I was kidding! Sorry for the miscommunication. I am really bad at sarcastic humor. Every time I say something completely ridiculus, in an effort to be funny, people believe me. Even my own family, and they should know better! Oh well. I guess I'll add disclaimers.Schrafinator says: Because they are sprinkled with magic, heat retardant pixie dust. I though even evolutionists knew that. (disclaimer: The previous two sentences were meant as a joke.)Anyway, Jar, I think stars to be millions of light years away. I now see where you were going with this. How could, in six thousand years, the light from such distant stars reach the earth? I have heard convincing arguments on the subject (which do not include modifying the speed of light), and will gladly debate about that with you after I'm done in this thread. (I don't have enough time for more than this and the mythical bible thread right now.)This message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 10:05 PM

True, and it drives me crazy. However, most of them hold a glimmer of truth; they are just articulated badly. I didn't take issue with that contention, that is very much under the scope and topic of the current debate. What I didn't like was the statement that 7D, YEC has been falsified.Before I answer the rest of your post, I want to have your definition of "creation science" and "creationism;" I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.Thanks,
JTThis message has been edited by JT, 08-07-2004 10:06 PM

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. I completely concur. 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]) This is not falsifiable, so this part is not scientific. 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 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. You are confusing the terms "science" and "evolution." 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. You are calling creationism religion, then attacking religion as unscientific (who claimed it was?). Red herring. 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?

Thanks, I appreciate it. 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. 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? 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. My goal is to find new flaws, and better articulate currently known flaws. 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 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

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. 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. I appreciate your support.

Loudmouth,
You have an interesting list of challenges, but I currently know very little about genetics (although I am learning), and can't answer them right now. Someday... Creationism cannot make sure predictions about things like mitochondrial DNA, because God could have made them however he wanted. (note: I am not using the "godunnit" argument to try to support creationism, it's just that we can't predict how God would have done something.) All I can say about mitochondrial DNA is that it will resemble bacterial DNA to the extent that mitochondria resemble bacteria (I know that that is extremely weak).The only prediction I can make with confidence is that there is much, much less "junk DNA" than is currently supposed. Actually, that is what my research will hopefully be about.

I almost mentioned this earlier, but didn't want to because it is fairly petty, but I think it is the best way to make my point now. What about when the scientific community believed the world was flat? I couldn't agree more. I am sensing an implication that I disbelieve evolution because of non-scientific (emotional?) reasons. That is why I disbelieve evolution, as will (hopefully) become apparent in later debates. I do have bias - I don't deny it. How I understand the falsification part of scientific method is as follows: you try as hard as possible to disprove your hypothesis, and if it stands, it must be pretty strong to have withstood all those attacks. Trying to disprove a hypothesis is inherently scientific.Since my bias has been one of the major issues so far, I will elaborate on it some (not the least so I understand it better). M-w defines bias as: "an inclination of temperament or outlook" and lists the synonyms "bent" and "tendency." My beliefs give me the tendency to view things in a way which supports my beliefs, i.e. if there is a fact I haven't known before, I will tend to interpret it in favor of creation than in favor of evolution.The bias is a problem only when the tendency to favorably (to my beliefs) interpret facts over-rules rationality. However, if one maintains rationality (like I strive to), bias only comes into play when two ideas equally (or nearly equally) explain something and bias is the only way to choose what to believe. I am afraid I am unable to support that claim, and therefore I apologize for making it. The only hypothesis I can distinctly remember was in discover magazine, and had to do with abiogenesis (yes, I know; creationist strawman, that's not evolution, etc.) I know I have read purely speculative articles, I just don't have any.

I disagree with you on that, but that is for (many) other threads... Agreed. Disagreed.Imagine a hypothetical world where creation happened, and evolution didn't. In that case, there could be no scientific explanation for the existence of life. The triumph of truth would lead to the abandonment of any scientific theory of life. There would be no guy with a more accurate theory, because a theory (in the scientific sense) couldn't explain it.If that situation (creation happened) is possible, then it is also possible to be a scientific anti-evolutionist without propounding another scientific theory.

To the best of my knowledge you are correct about that. However, all religious humanists are evolutionists. Does that affect the TOE at all?

Maybe what? I am not sure what you are reffering to. My opinion is that there is not a naturalistic explanation for life, and that it must thus be supernatural. I have examined the different supernatural ideas, and come to the conclusion that creation is most likely.

You misunderstood me - I was not meaning to assert that statement, I was talking about a hunch/opinion I have which has determined my choice of research. I rarely read creationist websites, and I do all research exclusively in evolution-supporting science books and evolutionist websites. The only times I go to creationist websites are when I am completely stumped by an evolutionist argument and need to know where to start. Once I have an idea of what to pursue, I go back to evolutionist sources. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life, and enough evidence to convince me that creation is the most likely supernatural explanation. (note: I am not asserting these statements for debate right now. This is merely an explanation of what I believe) Creationism is not a scientific theory; it cannot make predictions. I have no clue, because just started studying biology and know little about it. If you would have asked me a week ago what a mitochondrion was, I couldn't have answered. It is partially because of questions like yours that I want to get a phd in genetics. My hunch is that "junk DNA" is not merely functional vestigial code, but vital and fundamental code which is irreducibly complex (I know that term has been subject to debate, but I'm just explaining some guesses and opinions right now)