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

well, no, creation scientists generally do not operate under scientific methodology.

In truth, mike has never upset me.His arguments are too easy to refute.

quote:

---

Hey Schrafinator, saying something like that is fairly useless and mildly offensive. It is useless because entire point of this forum is to debate that point, and you can't just claim victory like that. It is offensive because you are calling me unscientific.

---

But Creationist arguments are unscientific, by and large.That can be easily demonstrated on an argument-by-argument basis.I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that's not really relevant.I am quite confident that I can point out how nearly any Creationist argument/conclusion is unscientific. I've been doing it for years.
In fact, the very premise of Creationism is unscientific.Try me.

quote:

---

The only reason I don't take a lot of offense at this is because I used to be the same way, but in regards to evolution. I could not understand how someone could possibly be so stupid or dishonest as to believe something so unscientific and falsified as evolution. Eventually, I realized that someone who disagrees with me can have good reasons for doing so, and that they even may be intelligent.

​

I respectfully disagree with you, and ask for you to do the same back.

---

Look, it's nothing personal, but Creationism is not scientific.I can demonstrate that it isn't scientific.Just because you want it to be doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

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.

---

OK, so let's start debating it.I propose that Creationism is not scientific because it begins with it's conclusion; that a particular interpretation of certain parts of the Christian Bible are literally true.All evidence in nature that supports this view is pointed out by Creationists in support of their preconceived conclusion, but any contradictory evidence is ignored or twisted into something it isn't.By contrast, real sciecne first looks at the evidence. It hypothesizes why the evidence appears as it does. Theories are fleshed-out hypothese, explanations of why the evidence appears as it does, that have been confirmed by many observations.See, the Creationists decide what they MUST find in nature without ever looking at nature.That isn't scientific.OK, care to rebut?

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure it is.Creationism isn't scientific, it's religious.Creationists do not play by the rules of science, as I have demonstrated above.I can proovide many, many more examples if you would like.

quote:

---

What you are doing is assuming that I am stupid because I disagree with you.

---

No, what he is doing is disagreeing with you and giving you FACTS as to why he thinks you are wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

He did tell you.He repeated what I had said, which was that Young Earth Creationism was falsified by Creationist Geologists 200 years ago. They had gone looking for evidence of a young Earth and a worldwide flood and found evidence instead of an ancient earth and many local flooding events.Rocky Road: Adam SedgwickThose are the facts. What contrary facts do you have?

quote:

---

I am not mad or offended (much), because I understand where you are coming from, but I would appreciate your stopping.

---

Stopping disagreeing with you and providing explanations as to why we think you are wrong?Um, this is a debate board, you know.

quote:

---

A litle over a mile.

---

The sun is only a mile away?Says who?Show the evidence that this is the case.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then why don't airplanes touch stars and melt? They go higher than half a mile high.

quote:

---

True, and it drives me crazy. However, most of them hold a glimmer of truth; they are just articulated badly.

---

Well, no, most of them really don't hold a glimmer of truth.Mosty of them are just wrong.Sorry.

quote:

---

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.

---

Young Earth Creationism, as a scientific claim, or group of scientific claims, has been falsified.Additionally, since many of the claims of YEC appeal to the supernatural, they cannot be falsified, and thus are not scientific.

quote:

---

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.

---

These are the definitions I like the best:creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. 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, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. ?Creation Science? is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."

quote:

---

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 am like that with the YEC issue.Can you show me an example of where I was not?

quote:

---

I had to laugh when I noticed that your definition defines creationism as psuedoscience, automatically winning the debate.

---

The reason my definition describes Creation science as a pseudoscience is because it is one. IOW, it fits the definition of a pseudoscience, so it makes sense to describe it as such.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hmm, it wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened.

quote:

---

However, all religious humanists are evolutionists.

---

Where on earth did you get that idea?

quote:

---

My opinion is that there is not a naturalistic explanation for life, and that it must thus be supernatural.

---

Are you claiming that there is no possible way that there could be a naturalistic explanation for life?If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient?

quote:

---

I have examined the different supernatural ideas, and come to the conclusion that creation is most likely.

---

You have examined ALL of the different supernatural ideas? There are infinite supernatural ideas, many of them utterly unrelated and contradictory.How can you conclude supernatural creation as most likely when each idea is equally valid and wildly different from the next?

quote:

---

The goal of science is to find truth;

---

I would further define science as "the description of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations."Please also remember that the scientific tenet of falsifiability means that we know that we can never know the complete "truth" about anything in nature. 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.

quote:

---

that truth can be useful, and if a theory is useful, that is one indication that it might be true. However, the usefulness of evolution is debatable,

---

Um, the usefulness of the ToE is quite established.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.I would put the Theory of Evolution on a par with the Atomic Theory of Matter, and Relativity Theory in importance.

quote:

---

and even if it were incredibly useful, that would be on the level of circumstantial evidence.

---

Um, we directly observe evolution happening, in real time, both in the lab and in the field.Furthermore, just because an event isn't directly observed doesn't mean we cannot study it and reach valid conclusions regarding it.Nobody has ever directly observed an electron. Do you deny that electrons exist?The following is a very good short essay which explains what science is and isn't, and it also explains how ideas and theories are confirmed, etc. I think you will like it, and I also think that it might clear up some misconceptions you might have.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

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."

quote:

---

However, after carefully reading that statement, I realized that it is naturalism, not evolution, which is a tenet of humanism, and someone could be a humanist without believing evolution. I stand (well, actually sit) corrected.

---

That is the difference between ontological naturalism, which says "nature is all there is", and methodological naturalism, which says "I can only know what I can detect with my senses".Notice that MN doesn't say anything at all about if the supernatural exists or not. It cannot, by definition, have anything to say about it. It is neutral on the subject.

quote:

---

Who says I'm not?

---

Me.Tell me exactly what I was doing one hour ago.Can't tell me? Then you aren't omnicient.

quote:

---

in regards to the supernatural, I am willing to, on faith, believe that the Bible is accurate in regards to creation. I do not claim, though, that my beliefs regarding the supernatural are scientific.

---

Then you don't know that supernatural creation is most likely; you just believe it.Big difference.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree.The ToE doesn't deal with how life first came into existence. It deals with the changes that life underwent ever since it emerged.Your argument is most likely with the various abiogenesis theories, which are not anywhere near as well-supported as the ToE.

quote:

---

Also, issues with "micro vs. macro evolution" could easily creep in here, but those are for a seperate debate.)

---

FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion. There is no difference in mechanism between micro- and macroevolution; just the timescales are different.

quote:

---

I was referring to life in its current forms, not just the origin of life.

---

OK, then, what are the specific insufficiencies of the ToE that you have identified?

quote:

---

Sort of. What creationists mean by the concept "micro-evolution" is that genetic change happens, but not in a way which could lead to any substantial change. However, the actual term "micro-evolution" means "small evolution," which is not what creationists mean. I admit that the misuse of this term by creationists is, well, a fairly obvious misuse, and I will try to avoid using it in the future.

---

OK, good.