why creation "science" isn't science

In various threads on this board, I have attempted to explain to creationists how "scientific" Creationism is actually not scientific at all. Mostly, I get either one of two responses:1) "Yes it is." (unsupported by any explanation), or2) "Well, the ToE isn't science." (which is irrelevant to the matter of if Creation "science" is scientific)In most of these cases, I really think that the people saying this simply do not know how to evaluate a notion on it's scientific merits. IOW, they don't know how to tell the difference between real science and religion dressed up in a lab coat pretending to do science.Listing web sites which explain the difference between science and the non-science of Creation "science" have produced nothing more than bald assertions and denials such as, "That's not true."In this thread, I would like to start a very specific discussion of what science is (including methodology), in what ways Creation "science" isn't science, and in what ways Biology and the ToE are science.Let's start with a basic definition of science. I like this one, but others may add their favorites: http://skepdic.com/science.html"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods
which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in
order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.""Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is."So, here we have one violation of the definition of science by Creation "science": Creationists assume that they have special knowledge ahead of time of what they are going to find.From: http://skepdic.com/creation.html"Creationism can’t be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with it, even apparent contradictions and contraries.
Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory, the steady state theory, and natural selection can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are airtight if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight."Here is another non-scientific quality of Creation "science"; the fact that it is considered non-falsifiable by it's proponents. The basic premise that the Flood happened, for example, is held to be infallibly true, it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.

quote:

---

schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science.

---

That is exactly what I think. It is also what the scientific community thinks. It is also what several state supreme courts think.If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted.

quote:

---

And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.

---

So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens. The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces."I don't know" does not equal "God".

quote:

---

(Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)

---

So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.As for how life got here, I don't know.Some people are extremely uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that. They prefer to step outside of what we can infer from the evidence to a belief that God or some other non-detectable something made us and/or has a special interest in us.I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

​

John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.

​

---

From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm"Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."Strawman argument.40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of a Creator, the Creator is known only through revelation, we cannot detect the Creator with our five senses, and since science, by definition, concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena, why should the tenets of science be completely changed to allow religious and/or supernatural explanations?What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?First of all, which religious guidelines would we use? All of them?
Some of them? One of them? Just about all of them are based upon holy books or some kind of ancient stories, but some are brand new religions. What about Scientology, for example; should we assume that enrons exist in science?And so on...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htmJohn Paul, you avoided anwering my questions and responding to my points. (how unusual) Please do so as they are relevant to the discussion."Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."Strawman argument.40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.[/QUOTE]Respond substantively, please.

quote:

---

What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?

---

Respond substantively, please.

quote:

---

First of all, which religious guidelines would we use? All of them? Some of them? One of them? Just about all of them are based upon holy books or some kind of ancient stories, but some are brand new religions. What about Scientology, for example; should we assume that enrons exist in science?

​

And so on...

---

Respond substantively, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of a Creator, the Creator is known only through revelation, we cannot detect the Creator with our five senses, and since science, by definition, concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena, why should the tenets of science be completely changed to allow religious and/or supernatural explanations?

​

John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.

---

You did not answer the question. Remember, we are discussing what science is, and if creationism is science.Since science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena, by definition, what compelling reason do we have to change the rules of science to allow supernatural explanations for naturalistic phenomena?Answer substantively, please.

quote:

---

schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science.

---

schraf: That is exactly what I think. It is also what the scientific community thinks. It is also what several state supreme courts think.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what you think, what scientific community are you talking about and please present the court statements that
would verify your claim.

---

I was in error when I said that the court descisions were at the state level. Several are, but several were also US supreme court descisions.Arkansas: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.htmlIn addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach, Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because ``creation-science'' as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is ``accepted by the scientific community'' and is ``what scientists do.'' The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics. First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which asserts a sudden creation ``from nothing.'' Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).If the unifying idea of supernatural creation by God is removed from Section 4, the remaining parts of the section explain nothing and are meaningless assertions.Section 4(a)(2), relating to the ``insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism,'' is an incomplete negative generalization directed at the theory of evolution.Section 4(a)(3) which describes ``changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals'' fails to conform to the essential characteristics of science for several reasons. First, there is no scientific definition of ``kinds'' and none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific authority which recognized the term or knew how many ``kinds'' existed. One defense witness suggested there may may be 100 to 10,000 different ``kinds.'' Another believes there were ``about 10,000, give or take a few thousand.'' Second, the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species. There is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.The statement in 4(a)(4) of ``separate ancestry of man and apes'' is a bald assertion. It explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory (26).Section 4(a)(5) refers to ``explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.'' This assertion completely fails as science. The Act is referring to the Noachian flood described in the Book of Genesis (27). The creationist writers concede that any kind of Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention. A worldwide flood as an explanation of the world's geology is not the product of natural law, nor can its occurrence be explained by natural law.Section 4(a)(6) equally fails to meet the standards of science. ``Relatively recent inception'' has no scientific meaning. It can only be given in reference to creationist writings which place the age at between 6,000 and 20,000 years because of the genealogy of the Old Testament. See, e.g., Px 78, Gish (6,000 to 10,000); Px 87, Segraves(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of ``what scientists think'' and ``what scientists do.'' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.The creationists have difficulty maintaining among their ranks consistency in the claim that creationism is science. The author of Act 590, Ellwanger, said that neither evolution or creationism was science. He thinks that both are religious. Duane Gish recently responded to an article in Discover critical of creationism by stating:Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious). (Gish, letter to editor of Discover, July, 1981, App. 30 to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief)The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it. The method is best explained in the language of Morris in his book (Px 31) Studies in The Bible and Science at page 114:... it is ... quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there ... Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is ``historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs'' (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.IV(D)In efforts to establish ``evidence'' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach contained in Section 4, i.e., all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science. For example, the defendants established that the mathematical probability of a chance chemical combination resulting in life from non-life is as remote that such an occurrence is almost beyond imagination. Those mathematical facts, the defendants argue, are scientific evidences that life was the product of a creator. While the statistical figures may be impressive evidence against the theory of chance chemical combinations as an explanation of origins, it requires a leap of faith to interpret those figures so as to support a complex doctrine which includes a sudden creation from nothing, a worldwide flood, separate ancestry of man and apes, and a young earth."Louisiana: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html#Held"The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment."As for the "scientific community" I refer to, I present a friend of the court brief for the Louisiana case entitled, "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES"Read it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.htmlThe plaintiffs in the in the Arkansas case were "...the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas."Lots of religious folks oppose the teaching of Creation "science" in schools, you see, because it translates to state-sponsored religion."Schraf: If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of
science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted."

quote:

---

John Paul:First take a history course. It was the Aristotelians at the universities that opposed Galileo. It was their influence that turned the Church.

---

It doesn't matter where the influence within the Church came from. The Church was the one doing the imprisoning because it had the "divine right" to do so, and the reason it persecuted the scientist was because he went against Church doctrine.

quote:

---

Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.

---

The creation model violates many tenets of science, the specifics of which I have been pointing out, such as it's declaration of knowledge of nature a priori.

quote:

---

And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.

---

schraf: So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens.

quote:

---

John Paul:Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.

---

Sure there is. Creationists declare that certain things happen by supernatural means. That's magic. Meaning, that's not science.Also, falsification of Creation "science" isn't a demonstration that purely natural processes are all that are required. A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.schraf: The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.

quote:

---

John Paul:Ah, but the gaps are real, they are many and they are huge. In order to get around them it takes faith and belief.

---

You didn't comment on the statement I made. I said, "The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces." It doesn't matter how big you think the gaps are, they still aren't positive evidence. It doesn't matter if "it takes faith and belief to get around them". Gaps in our knowledge do NOTHING to forward Creation "science". How many times are you going to sidestep this fact?Also, you point to Behe's gaps frequently, such as blood clotting, yet you refulse to discuss the specifics of the genetic evidence which refutes Behe's notion that blood clotting is "impossible" by natural means. In this vein, what happens if ALL of Behe's examples of IC are eventually understood?If the entirety of the ToE were to be falsified tomorrow, it would not mean that Creationism is correct. You are STILL under the strange, inaccurate (yet common among Creationists) impression that there is a dualism here. There isn't.schraf: "I don't know" does not equal "God".

quote:

---

John Paul: And it does not equal materialistic naturalism.

---

Non responsive."I don't know" means just that. To a scientist, "I don't know" leads to research to try to figure it out. To Creationists and ID proponents, "I don't know" leads to "Godidit", not further research.

quote:

---

quoteDo you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)

---

schraf:So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.

quote:

---

John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.

---

All of the leading Creation Science organizations certainly do.schraf:As for how life got here, I don't know.

quote:

---

John Paul:The point is no one does, so why is it bad to infer it is here due to some Designer/ Creator?

---

It isn't bad to do this as long as you aren't wanting to call it science.schraf:Some people are extremely uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that. They prefer to step outside of what we
can infer from the evidence to a belief that God or some other non-detectable something made us and/or has a special interest
in us.I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.

quote:

---

John Paul: But that is exactly what evolutionists do...

---

You seem to think that if you repeat assertions often enough that you somehow make them true.There is no supernatural element to the tenets of science. Show me that there is or stop making the claim.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-15-2002]

[QUOTE] JP: "Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to
mechanical laws."Allison: "Strawman argument.40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.schraf:Respond substantively, please."

quote:

---

John Paul:To what?

---

Stalling, eh?You like to throw around the term "materialistic naturalism" as a bias that science has, and this is why we cannot trust that scientific results and "conclusions" are a good approximation of the reality of naturalistic phenomena.I just pointed out to you that 40% of scientists believe in God, and so do not subscribe to materialistic naturalism. (The other 60% may or may not)Therefore, I refuted your sweeping indictment that science is biased.The usual thing to do during a debate, in this case, is to either attempt a rebuttal or concede the point.That is, if one is interested in debating in a straightforward way."Allison: What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in
science?"

quote:

---

John Paul:Again, respond to what? You say nothing about the restrictions and guidelines that materialistic naturalism places
on the quest for knowledge. Why is that?

---

Huh? Why would I say anything about materialistic naturalism when we are talking about science?Science, in fact, avoids altogether the question of if there is anything beyond nature.YOU are the one implying that including religious ideas into science would somehow make it better, so it is up to you to explain how scientific inquiry would benefit.Allison; "First of all, which religious guidelines would we use? All of them? Some of them? One of them? Just about all of them are based upon holy books or some kind of ancient stories, but some are brand new religions. What about Scientology, for example; should we assume that enrons exist in science? And so on..."Correction: I should have written "en-grams", not "enrons", above.

quote:

---

John Paul:Use the one that best fits the evidence.

---

The religious notion that best fits the evidence is called "LastThursdayism".This is the idea that God created the entire universe, including all of our memories of the past, last Thursday.Here is a link to a slightly "different" denomination of this church which explains more: http://home.earthlink.net/~aexia/colt/

quote:

---

In reality the Creation model of biological evolution violates NO tenets of science. Remember, evolution isn't concerned with origins.

---

First, since I have not ever seen the "Creation model of biological evolution" I'm not sure what we are talking about. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide it?So, are you trying to tell me that the Creation model of biological evolution does NOT refer to the Bible, Genesis, or God in any way?How do you reconcile this claim with what has been cut and pasted here from the ICR and CRS?? They start off requiring belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and this specifically violates the scientific tenet of not knowing nature a priori.

quote:

---

The problem with the court decisions is that at the time they weren't aware of what the Creation model of biological evolution was.

---

Bullshit.The defendants were CREATIONISTS!! They called creationists to the stand.They have had several "days in court" to prove their case that Creationism is science and they were soundly defeated.Let's not forget Kansas, either.Nobody is fooled, John Paul.Creationism is religion, and it isn't science.Furthermore, do you now understand that the US supreme court has ruled that Creation "science" is religion and isn't science?Also, do you now understand what I mean when I say "the community of scientists" since I linked you to the friend of the court brief by 72 Nobel Laureates, etc.?Since you tend to ignore arguments that you lose or can't answer instead of conceding them, I want to be clear that you actually recognize that I provided what you asked for.

quote:

---

--This is not about listing various web sites opinons on what they think to be true, infallable, fact, and whatnot. We are here to discuss our own views not start jumping in with other peoples views and saying, thus, you have to be dumb to think creation science is science.

---

Well, it isn't science, as science as defined in my original post, which is a very good definition.

quote:

---

--Sounded good untill it accused scientific creationists as being uncooperative with this definition, we in no way claim that we are infallably right and that we cannot be falsified because we believe that the Bible is infallable, thus unfalsifiable. Which is exactly the flaw, scientific creationism has nothing to do with supernatural entities, though on the other hand the origin of the universe does.

---

Um, what?Have you read the ICR and CRS websites at all?

quote:

---

--We do not assume that we have prior special infallable knowledge,

---

Sorry, but you most certainly do assume knowledge of nature a priori.If you decide that the Flood happened before you even go looking at the natural evidence, and you do not allow any evidence that the flood didn't happen to sway you from your belief that it did happen, then you are assuming prior special infallable knowledge.This is not science.If you can show me that the ICR and CRS is in any way different from my portrayal of Creation Science, be my guest, but I doubt that you can do it.

quote:

---

we simply say hey look at this book, and look at science, science is evidence that this book is right. This is your flaw in what your view is on 'scientific creationism'.

---

Your problem is that you still think that creationists somehow do any science. They do not.Creationists do not submit papers to peer-reviewed publications. They do not do research. They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in real sceintist's research when it disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible. Evidence which seems to agree with their interpretation is eagerly accepted and praised.

quote:

---

Again this is another misunderstanding of creation science. Your getting theology and faith mixed in with it. I in no way say that the Flood is infallibly true, I say that I believe it happend and here is my evidence to back it up, as we discuss in the Flood Discussion thread.

---

When you state that you "believe the Flood happened", YOU are the one mixing faith with science.That is a completely unscientific way to think about a problem. You have decided ahead of time that the Flood happened. Then, after you have decided what happened, you pick and choose what evidence seems to back up the claim that the flood happened.the scientific method never assumes it can know ahead of time what it will find. A hypothesis relating to a theory about natural events is proposed (prediction). Observations are made and evidence is gathered, and only then are conclusions made about if
the evidence tends to support or refute the hypothesis.Creation science has it backwards.Tell us what the potential falsifications of a Theory of a World wide Biblical FLood be, if such a theory existed?

LOL!!I stand corrected!LOL!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
This arguement really bugs me.

​

Why is it Creationists are the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?

​

My belief is that scientists obtain the same flaw as Creationists. I believe most scientists accept evolution with little doubt and information they find is interpreted according to the evolutionary outline.

​

You may disagree with me, as you are entitled to. However, nobody can offer me any proof that scientists are free from bias.

---

Here are other theories which scientists accept with little doubt:The Germ Theory of Disease
The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System
The Atomic Theory of MatterScience assumes something is true because a century and a half of research (in the case of the ToE) tends to strongly confirm it's veracity. It is the agreement among scientists that any theory, no matter how well-established, can be reexamined and possibly changed if better evidence comes along.The assumption in the Creation "science" community, by contrast, is that their ideas are true because of divine revelation, and therefore are not EVER open to reevaluation, no matter how much contradictory evidence comes along.Leading Creation "science" organizations explicitly state that the ultimate arbiter of what is "fact" in nature is not the evidence found in nature, but the infallible Bible. This is not science.You can try to say that Creation "science" just interprets the evidence differently, but then, if you stay within the methodology of science, the interpretations are quite illogical and poor.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If you prefer to view evolution as some vast conspiracy then it's far broader than that, encompassing all major universities around the world and many of the world's significant religions."
--I would not at all accuse anyone working as an evolutionist of working by a conspiracy. I simply believe that with the massive overall acceptance to the teaching of evolution in these universities and in these organizations you would be almost all alone and ready to have your science ridiculed if there be the slightest of a flaw in it. Its a strive to keep your job, the reason also considering the bias against creationists just because they are creationists.

---

Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories.Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization.You seem to have a very strange view of how science is done. Science is very, very contentious. Careers are often made when old theories held to be very important and solid are refined and changed. Like Einstein did with Newton.Presenting your work to your peers is a harrowing experience if you don't have your act together, as there are competing ideas all the time, and those holding these other viewpoints will grill you on yours. (it's harrowing even if you know your stuff, actually) Consensus is reached over time, with repeated observations. Eventually, we get nearer and nearer to reality.Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST. Positive evidence is nowhere to be found for Creationism. Creationism is not testable, as it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.I have said this many times without ANY comment from Creationists.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2002]

quote:

---

"They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?"
--The ratio of creationists and evolutionists teaching in universities would be somewhat of a simmilarity of these forums or much more, about one creationist for ever so many evolutionists. And as you recognize throughout these forums, I wouldn't point anyone out, but you sense much 'bias' if the word should be used in the context, against a creationists response when they feel they have adiquately refuted their statements. Now there is no moping or groaning or crying or bickering (hopefully, I have seen bickering in some live debates), but there is bias against.

---

There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good.Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals.

quote:

---

There are so many scientists making millions of dollars doing research on the evolution topic,

---

ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!! I am truly laughing so hard that I have tears in my eyes here!! LOLOLOLOL!!Most university Biologists do not make very much money, dear. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars for most of them. You don't even get into six figures unless you are ver important in the field. Sure, there are people like Gould who make more, but they are rare, and I would say that he makes most of his money through popular press books, not from Harvard.Every graduate student must struggle with the choice between going into industry, where they won't be able to research what they want to but will make more money, and in staying on the university track, where he will have more intellectual freedom, but will not make much money.The reason, at the end of the day, that Biology and science is supported over Creationism is because of science's enormous predictive power. Cerationism has no predictive power, because it makes no predictions which haven't been falsified.

Here is a list of 29 evidences for "mcro" evolution, complete with potential falsifications: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions?"The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life. And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation. The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination. If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator.{/QUOTENo, they aren't.This is a "God of the Gaps" argument. Lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute positive evidence for a different theory.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time.

---

Please read more carefully. Abiogenesis is largely irrelevant
to the ToE.

quote:

---

"Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified."

​

How about you use common sense instead?

---

Cute, but not adequate if you want to be scientific. It was "common sense" for a very long time that the Earth was flat.

quote:

---

"How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to."

​

"Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution."

​

You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means.

---

It is not an either/or question. We could just not be intelligent enough to figure it out. Or, more likely, we just need more time to figure it out. Besides, Abiogenesis is largely irrelevent to the ToE.

quote:

---

This intelligent being would likely be God.

---

LOL! Why would this be "likely", exactly?

quote:

---

Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory:

​

1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.

---

Why would it "had" to have started? [QUOTE]2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion.[QUOTE] Except that aliens wouldn't have had to come here. Organic compounds could have landed on the planet from a comet or other object.

quote:

---

So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet,

---

Strawman argument. I don't know who claims this to be tue. Can you name them?

quote:

---

then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer.

---

So, what positive evidence do you have that we were designed?

quote:

---

"Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim."

​

What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model?

---

It isn't a model. Try again.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-24-2002]