|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
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 ? )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
They beat the hell out of the long rambling ones IMHO.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Were they really that bad? Oops.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4699 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
JT writes:
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. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:31 AM What is, is or it wouldn't be...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
minnemooseus writes:
Looking at what is... which is the source of the most information. Looking at the creation, or looking at the Biblical story of the creation? This message has been edited by entwine, 08-11-2004 04:31 AM What is, is or it wouldn't be...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JT,
I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life Such as? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024