Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 196 of 265 (132634)
08-11-2004 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by jt
08-11-2004 12:31 AM


not really suported but....
but I am sure there is at least one creationist scientist doing good research.
Me too, and maybe, just maybe in matters pertinent to the debate. Low probability though.
I also think it has happened in the past. There is a tendancy for them to give up on creationism in the process.
for a lot of people, it is subject to the same feelings creation is subject to.
Not having had those feelings I should leave this to those who have but I don't see (as best as I can tell from what I've read from creationists here and elsewhere) that there are any similarities in feelings.
The closest that I might be able to come is the general (not evolution related) feelings I get of excitement and awe as we learn more and more about the universe and all it contains. It is just plain neat!!! (does that word date me terribly ? )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 12:31 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 2:06 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 197 of 265 (132638)
08-11-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nator
08-10-2004 10:26 PM


Re: Separation
I would further define science as "the description of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations."
Valid. That definitely furthers the simple definition I gave.
We can be REALLY confident that we are correct, but all scientific findings and theories are always, in principle, able to be modified in the light of new evidence.
I am fully aware of this, but thanks for bringing it up.
The ToE has spawned entire scientific disciplines (population genetics, for example) and is the unifying theory that underpins pretty much all of the life sciences.
Evolution, i.e. gradual change via many small changes, applies to many things, and thus is helpful in regards to many things. I do not, however, believe that it is sufficient to explain life.
Um, we directly observe evolution happening, in real time, both in the lab and in the field.
Change is observable in the field. Whether that change is evolution or not is debatable. (Unless you define evolution purely by change. Also, issues with "micro vs. macro evolution" could easily creep in here, but those are for a seperate debate.)
Furthermore, just because an event isn't directly observed doesn't mean we cannot study it and reach valid conclusions regarding it.
I agree.
I think you will like it, and I also think that it might clear up some misconceptions you might have.
I do like it, although it didn't reveal any misconceptions. I understand scientific method, but I only really learned about it in detail recently (after I came here). I am still getting used to using it and do misrepresent/misunderstand it sometimes, and appreciate correction when I do, but overall I understand it pretty well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 08-10-2004 10:26 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by nator, posted 08-11-2004 7:09 PM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 198 of 265 (132640)
08-11-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by jt
08-10-2004 8:27 PM


In that case, there could be no scientific explanation for the existence of life.
Nonsense. If God participates in the natural world, he becomes part of it, and amienable to scientific investigation. By definition, the supernatural cannot cause action in the natural world.
If you disagree, we need to pin down what "supernatural" means. I made a thread to do just that (in the Is It Science area) but so far nobody's participated. I'd love to have your input, though.
If that situation (creation happened) is possible
Presuming for a moment that it happened that way, how would you propose to prove it? There's no other way to substantiate the occurance of events except via the scientific method; all other methods are indistinguishable from falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 8:27 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 199 of 265 (132644)
08-11-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NosyNed
08-11-2004 12:24 AM


Re: Scientific community
MMM, that was a bit of a digression.
Interesting, informative, and appreciated, though.
I have a question for anybody. Ever since Jar requested that I "use the little red button," my post count has increased dramatically and the topic's activity meter has spiked (both of which I think are cool), but I was wondering if the numerous small posts are annoying? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2004 12:24 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 1:54 AM jt has replied
 Message 204 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-11-2004 2:16 AM jt has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 200 of 265 (132648)
08-11-2004 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by jt
08-11-2004 1:42 AM


Re: Scientific community
They beat the hell out of the long rambling ones IMHO.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 1:42 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 2:08 AM jar has replied

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


Message 201 of 265 (132651)
08-11-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by NosyNed
08-11-2004 1:22 AM


Re: not really suported but....
Not having had those feelings I should leave this to those who have but I don't see (as best as I can tell from what I've read from creationists here and elsewhere) that there are any similarities in feelings.
You are probably right about that, I guess it is different thinking there is a God who did something as opposed to completely random chance.(note: phraseology chosen to push buttons in a jocular manner) But anyway, my point was that feelings about a theory have no bearing about its truth.
I also think it has happened in the past. There is a tendancy for them to give up on creationism in the process.
That may be.
The closest that I might be able to come is the general (not evolution related) feelings I get of excitement and awe as we learn more and more about the universe and all it contains. It is just plain neat!!!
I get those feelings, too (normally followed by awe of God). That is why I love science so much.
(does that word date me terribly ? )
It dates you, but the only words which would do so terribly (IMO) are those which would date you to the seventies/eighties.
This message has been edited by JT, 08-11-2004 01:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2004 1:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 202 of 265 (132652)
08-11-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
08-11-2004 1:54 AM


Really?
Were they really that bad? Oops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 1:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 10:21 AM jt has not replied

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


Message 203 of 265 (132653)
08-11-2004 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by jt
08-10-2004 9:59 PM


Re: Separation
The goal of science is to find truth; that truth can be useful, and if a theory is useful, that is one indication that it might be true.
JT,
I'm struggling here to find a language of useful disctinctions. I get the impression that "Truth" is in some fundamantal sense the crux of your interest. I'm noting that as capital "T" "Truth". I know that that is my interest. I guess anymore I see science as being very helpful as scientists explore various truth, small "t". But I find I need philosophy to deal with discussions of "Truth" which would take us off topic here I think. My personal interest lies along the lines of what in Zen Buddhism is called "direct seeing into one's nature".
For me consciousness is the fundamental mystery that tends to get ignored by western religion and is only beginning to be addressed by science. To me life is a complex behaviour of molecules but doesn't break any of the "laws" of chemistry or physics. For me the question is whether consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe in the way energy and space are, or is it an emergent property in the way that life is.
You are doing a good job clarifying your meaning I think.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 9:59 PM jt has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 204 of 265 (132655)
08-11-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by jt
08-11-2004 1:42 AM


The many short postings vs. a single large posting question
I've brought this question to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic, at message 204.
Please persue any discussion at that location.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 1:42 AM jt has not replied

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 265 (132661)
08-11-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by jt
07-20-2004 4:08 PM


Actually, the only proof most scientist will accept that evolution is wrong is 1) aliens landing and telling us they are our daddies (which would just start the the thread of who were their daddies), or 2) God coming down and telling us of our creation. Scientific method has to be applied to all other circumstances precluding the above two. Faith isn't challenged by science, only ignorance.
forgot about 3) creation of a time machine where a scientist can go back and see what happened. But I imagine that will be subject to scrutiny as to which time-line that scientist actually visited.
This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 02:12 AM
This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:32 AM

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jt, posted 07-20-2004 4:08 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2004 3:18 AM entwine has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 206 of 265 (132667)
08-11-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by entwine
08-11-2004 3:05 AM


The creation or the Biblical story of the creation?
Entwine, which is the source of the most information. Looking at the creation, or looking at the Biblical story of the creation?
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by entwine, posted 08-11-2004 3:05 AM entwine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by entwine, posted 08-11-2004 3:38 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 265 (132672)
08-11-2004 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by jt
08-10-2004 9:03 PM


JT writes:
I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life
There is much more to the universe than life as we know it. And it is from this "much more" that we find most of our answers.
This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:31 AM

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 9:03 PM jt has not replied

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 265 (132674)
08-11-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Minnemooseus
08-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: The creation or the Biblical story of the creation?
minnemooseus writes:
which is the source of the most information. Looking at the creation, or looking at the Biblical story of the creation?
Looking at what is...
This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:31 AM

What is, is or it wouldn't be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-11-2004 3:18 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 209 of 265 (132711)
08-11-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by jt
08-10-2004 9:03 PM


JT,
I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life
Such as?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 9:03 PM jt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 210 of 265 (132722)
08-11-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by jt
08-11-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Jumping the gun
quote:
Does the fact that it is theoretically possible to come up with a better naturalistic explanation, even though we have no comprehension of what it would be (if it is even possible), mean that it is illogical or hasty to believe in a supernatural explanation?
Yes, and well done.
Your question illustrates the flaw of the "God of the Gaps" argument.
Unless we follow the above tenet, we are no different from those who figured that the god Apollo pulled the sun across the dome of the sky in his firey chariot.
The scientific answer to a gap in our knowledge must always be, simply, "We don't know", not "We don't have a scientific explanation right at this moment, therefore Godidit."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 12:23 AM jt 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