why creation "science" isn't science

"I think bias is still apparent in scientists, despite the scientific method. And if any bias is involved, science can not be pure."
--Bias is apparent in many scientists, though I wouldn't say all, though I cannot name any :/. Its the way that the scientists present what has been found that would include the bias. Science is not bias, I think the order would be Science--->Evidence----->Interperetation. The bias comes in after the evidence, the evidence is your findings. Unless it is a fraud then Evidence is at fault, but what proved it to be at fault? Science did."Science is not just facts. It is interpretation of the facts. If a bias affects the interpretation, the science is not perfect. I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation."
--Science and interperetation are a bit seperate I would say, the Science is the basis fundimental, then it branches off into evidence and interperetation of the evidence. in this interperetation is most likely where you will find bias, lest they be lying."I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation."
--I would say this woulnn't be true, bias effects my belief, but not the science and the interperetation, as I strive to look at everything that would challenge it and give it a reason or explination. Creation science simply is science. Its just given this name because of the nature of bias and they think that you need to give it another name, they believe that their interperetations are the facts/the science."My question was not meant that way. I should of said,"Why is it Creationists are CONSIDERED the only group of people that let their pre-determined ideas affect their research or interpretation of the facts?"
--Ok I can see. I beleive that it would be a cause of ignorance for against science because it is being judged in a creationists eyes. The people that simply do not know of the method of creationists which is the same as the evolutionist, they are both scientists. From organizations such as talk.origins (a quite biased group claiming to present the facts). I recall vividly their Problems with a Global Flood and wondered why, when they seem to be presenting a case, they claimed them to be problems when they have already been answered. There will be attacks against indiduals and such, though an attack against the Creationist because they are a Creationist and attacking 'Creation science' will lose.---------------

quote:

---

I think bias is still apparent in scientists, despite the scientific method. And if any bias is involved, science can not be pure.

---

Bias is produced by the scientific method. The point of science is to produce a result that is biased towards the "true" state of the natural phenomenon being studied through the use of reliable and valid measures. We test hypotheses specifically to check any previous bias an individual scientist has. The method itself is designed to check prior biases and through doing so arrive at a bias that is consistent with the natural world.

quote:

---

Science is not just facts. It is interpretation of the facts. If a bias affects the interpretation, the science is not perfect.

---

The "interpretation" is testable and in science it is tested. The point of testing hypotheses and providing potential falsifications is exactly to check an individual's bias and provide an accurate finding. The outcome isn't predetermined in science, it is determined by testing hypotheses.

quote:

---

I think Evolutionists and Creationists are equally guilty of letting bias affect interpretation.

---

Evolutionists test their hypotheses and provide potential falsifications. Creationists do not do so. The evidence of this is that one cannot provide a testable theory with potential falsifications of a creationist theory that hasn't already been falsified.

quote:

---

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

---

Because they don't test their ideas. They don't submit their biases to the method designed to test those ideas in any meaningful manner.Larry

====talkorigins(a quite biased group claiming to present the facts)A series of FAQs based on the current state of science actually. It is biased, but biased in favor of the scientific conclusions.

Hi again, TrueCreation. Thanks for your response. I actually meant those examples I gave as illustrative of the "type" of evidence discussion I was looking for. You didn't have to use those - although I appreciate your effort. If you'd like to use different examples, that's fine. I don't want anyone to think my post was some kind of "set up". Alternatively, we can keep looking at the ones I used. Your call...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

Considering Evaporites - This is often credited as being from long term vaporation as the cause of sun shine for instance. Though the high Chemical purity shows that it wasn't exposed to dry dusty climates for long periods of time. A creatinist interperetation of this would be, they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity a hydrothermal deposit. Earlier I remember there was a comment saying that some of the grand canyon was formed from uplift (suggesting magmatic activity and possibly volcanic or heated sediment floors).

---

Good response. Although Joe stole a lot of my thunder (), there are a few details I can add. There are a couple of additional problems with this explanation:

quote:

---

1) Most large evaporite deposits found in the geologic record, for example those in intracratonic basins like the km thick Paradox salts, the 11 seperate salt beds in the Williston Basin, or the 800-2500m thick deposits in the Medditeranean Basin, are not associated with any hydrothermal deposits of iron, manganese and so on, or with hydrothermally altered rocks, or with stockworks, ore veins, or any other evidence of contemporaneous magmatic/hydrothermal activity. That such evidence has not been found is telling, since any event which could deposit large salts in a period of mere weeks or months would be a very high energy event.

​

2.) Hydrothermal systems operating today in the sea at mid-ocean ridges, or on the continents (for instance in the Yellowstone National Park) do not seem to be depositing any sodium chloride, much less thick, laterally extensive sheets of salts such as those found in the sedimentary record, although hydrothermal systems in the ocean are depositing iron, manganese, copper and zinc sulfates, oxides and silicates. Anhydrite (CaSO4) is present in hydrothermal chimneys, but not as deposits surrounding the chimneys. This is not suprising, given that the mantle does not seem to contain significant source amounts of sodium of other volatile elements for hydrothermal systems to extract in the first place. In fact, hydrothermal solutions appear to contain smaller amounts of Cl and Na (17,300 and 9931 ppm) than normal seawater (19,500 and 10,500 ppm) (The Ocean Basins: Their Structure and Evolution, Open University, 1988, p. 100).

​

3) Sea floor basalt is often hydrothermally altered to significant depths, but as far as I know, no halite deposits are found in association with sea-floor basalts or in ophiolites. On the other hand, hydrothermal deposits of iron and manganese are almost always found overlying oceanic basalt where cores have been taken through oceanic sediments into the underlying basalt. So, in fact, hydrothermal deposits are found all over the ocean floor -- they just don't contain any evaporite deposits!

​

4.) Evaporites are usually found in association with other sedimentary structures, such as vertebrate footprints, dessication cracks and occasional raindrop impressions, which are expected in a subarial depositional environments such as playas and sabkhas, but not in a subaqueous, or superheated hydrothermal environment.

​

5.) The statement that the "high chemical purity of the deposits shows they were not exposed to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years" is wrong. This claim can be traced back to Sozansky (1973), who claimed that the (alleged) absence of pollen and/or planktonic tests in evaporite deposits argues against an evporation model. However, it is now known, and has been known for decades, that many evaporite deposits do in fact contain "impurities" such as pollen, plankton, algae, fungi spores, volcanic ash layers, and so forth, which we would expect on the restricted-marine, basin-evaporation theory, but not what we would expect if these salts were somehow rapidly extruded underwater in a global flood. (From this site with many thanks to Patrick.)

---

quote:

---

Quetzal: "the 1300 separate dinosaur trackways of the Purgatoire Valley, erroneously attributed to the Jurassic, are evidence of Creationism because..."

​

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The effects of sedimentary deposits in the flood are more contributed toward 'jumps'. Or seemingly quick deposits of sediments, thus giving days, or weeks of time to give creatures time to make trackways. The sudden disapearence of dinosaurs could be contributed to a massive catastrophic activity in which would allow more mammals to survive rather than the overgrown lizards, possibly the setting in of the ice age.

---

I guess this was sort of a trick question. The key issue here is that the Purgatoire trackways were imbedded in four distinct rock layers. The Morrison (Purgatoire) formation is one of the most famous megatrackways in the Colorado Plateau/Grand Canyon assembly. Included in these layers are abundant fossils of plants, algae, snails, clams, crustaceans, and fish, indicating the formation occured on the shores of a large lake - not deposited by a flood. Sometimes the tracks contain crushed clam shells and flattened plant stems created perhaps when dinosaurs came to the shore for a drink.Another key problem with your response is that the Morrison Formation is only one of over 400 distinct layers - all containing tracks - in the plateau area. Trackways in the Colorado plateau and their associated fossils are perfectly stratified: small transitional amphibians (such as Stenichnus) and small mammal-like reptiles (pelycosaurs) in the lowest (Permian) layers to the true huge dinos such as brachiosaur in the Morrison (Jurassic) to ornithopod tracks in the upper levels (Cretaceous). In other words, perfectly consistent with evolution and change over 200 million years - but inconsistent with a catastrophic flood and rapid deposition. Remember, we're talking over 5000 feet of sedimentary deposition.

quote:

---

Quetzal: the existence of a vestigal pelvis in the rainbow boa, but not in many other snakes, is evidence of Creationism because...
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I'll see if I can't find another interperetation of this, though one is that some snacks such as this rainbow boa were a variant with a sort of leg. As this could even agree with the bible saying that the serpent in the garden of eden would crawl on its belly for the rest of its days. Also vastigials, though virtually almost every one can be contributed to a definant function, it is a 'devolving' process. To slowely lose something isn't a problem for creationists.

---

The biblical Garden of Eden explanation only works if ALL snakes had these vestiges - they don't. AFAIK, only three groups retain vestigal limbs and or pelvises. Boas even retain a vestigal claw. If the curse applied to the ancestors of all snakes, it would make sense to that the same vestigals would be present in each species since all snakes were cursed at the same time - a situation which is manifestly NOT the case. Again, we see evidence that is consistent with evolutionary pressures operating differentially on isolated populations, but not biblical interpretation. The same problem with vestigal organs occurs throughout the record and across multiple taxonomic orders. (BTW: there is no such thing as "devolution" - the snakes are evolving toward better adaptation to their particular niche. Slow elimination of unneeded structures - and a case could be made that limbs are actually a hinderance to snakes - is consistent with evolution and is seen throughout the record. c.f. whales, moles, cave fish and arthropods, etc).

quote:

---

Quetzal: the three separate reproductive designs in modern sharks is evidence of Creationism because..."
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I believe you are refering to the different egg development designs in sharks, Viviparity, Oviparity, and Aplacental Viviparity (Ovoviviparous). This could be a product of variation, though it seems more likely contributed to the different kinds that were on the earth and in the seas after the creation, as there is a large variation in each of these 3 development mechenisms.

---

Yep, that's what I was referring to. It might be a good idea to table this last question for a bit. I think we might end up arguing how to differentiate "kinds", etc. (For ex, are you proposing that there were three "shark kinds"? What about skates and rays - they are also related to sharks? Are they a different kind? You get the picture.)Anyway, thanks for the responses. Again, we can continue with these examples, or you could pick some others that show evidence for Creationism.Toodles.

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:
"Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals"
--Just wondering, what journals? And wheres the quote from.

​

-------------

​

---

TC,I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
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 Matter

​

---

All of these theories are much easier to prove using physical knowledge. Is it possible these theories are wrong? Yes, without a doubt. However, it does not seem likely to me.Evolution (in my opinion) differs from these because it does not have enough evidence to support it. The fact that scientists accept it does not really matter when it comes to actual knowledge. It is my OPINION that evolution does not have enough facts to support it. This is because the evidence for evolution is obtained mostly from inferences from the past.Anyways, this whole post is besides my point. My point is that scientists are very likely to let bias affect their interpretation of the facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

quote:

---

Cobra Snake: My point is that scientists are very likely to let bias affect their interpretation of the facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

---

The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work.Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists.Which isn't to say that this system of checks can't be occasionly blotched. Example: The long time it took for science to catch the Piltdown man hoax. But the PM was a minor detail, and it did ultimatly get exposed.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then."
--IC, though this is relevant to a degree and it seems at the same time irrelevant. I think the 'Creation bomb' first started exploding and reaching the globe per se in 1983 and then it jumped again in the later 1980's and is continually rising in the 2000's. Is this based on creationist paper submitions to 'Science' mag? or Science and other mags?---------------

"All of these theories are much easier to prove using physical knowledge. Is it possible these theories are wrong? Yes, without a doubt. However, it does not seem likely to me."
--Actually, possibly discounting the Atomic Theory of Matter, Germ theory and Heliocentric solar system or something such as the theory of Gravity are proven to be reality, now this does not mean that additions will not be added to it or even giving it a new name, we know basically what Gravity is, we see the effects of it and we call these effects the causes of gravity. Now mabye scientists will discover all these different aspects about gravity and how you can minipulate it and do whatever it is you want with it, but the basics are still there, its a force and the force is called Gravity."Evolution (in my opinion) differs from these because it does not have enough evidence to support it."
--'E'volution doesn't have enough evidence to make it even a theory in my mind but lets give it that much, it has no more power to go forward in that. What are the evidences of 'E'volution, some of the evidence is that we see a unity and similarity in life, but for this to be evidence for 'E'volution you have to assume it has allready happend. Another evidence is that basically if you discount possible flaws you see a steady increase in the geologic column which is what 'E'volution would predict(discounting the transitional fossil argument). Is all this evidence for 'E'volution? Only if we assume that it happend, and also it is not the only explination."The fact that scientists accept it does not really matter when it comes to actual knowledge."
--Yes Majority means no more than the slightness of nothing."This is because the evidence for evolution is obtained mostly from inferences from the past."
--And an assumption that it has already happend."Anyways, this whole post is besides my point. My point is that scientists are very likely to let bias affect their interpretation of the facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand."
--Bias isn't really going to effect the 'facts', it will effect the way they present these facts, but unless he fraudulently posed the facts falsly then the facts remain truth. I see what your getting at Cobra.----------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then."
--IC, though this is relevant to a degree and it seems at the same time irrelevant. I think the 'Creation bomb' first started exploding and reaching the globe per se in 1983 and then it jumped again in the later 1980's and is continually rising in the 2000's. Is this based on creationist paper submitions to 'Science' mag? or Science and other mags?

​

---------------

​

---

TC,Are there any creation science papers submitted to, & accepted by, scientific journals since 1985?Also, the quote does give numbers of publications checked, though not the the journals specifically. It couldn't have been in "science" only, unless they publish 4 times a day (4,000 over 3 years)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-19-2002]

"Are there any creation science papers submitted to, & accepted by, scientific journals since 1985?Also, the quote does give numbers of publications checked, though not the the journals specifically. It couldn't have been in "science" only, unless they publish 4 times a day (4,000 over 3 years)"
--I would speculate many papers (though I have no source to back up my claim of 'paper submitions and publications'). Though I can see the bias that Science Magazine inherets in its magazine by its refusal to higher creationists which speaks volumes on paper submitions. Creation ex Nihilo Volume 13 Number 2, March - May 1991 pg. 16-17
--Here is a short article on the subject of paper/article editor bias pre-peer reviewed submitions http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
--If I could do my own magazine it would be a magazine on Creation and Evolution and Creationists would have a segment and evolutionists would have a segment with a discussion and open FAQ area or something of the nature towards the back. Free of bias is knowledge.--------------

"The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work."
--Very much agreed, and when flaws are found, the scientists should withdraw or give an explination of the flaw, need it be a flaw."Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists."
--Yes, Real scientists don't do cover-ups, but real scientists do revisions.---------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work."
--Very much agreed, and when flaws are found, the scientists should withdraw or give an explination of the flaw, need it be a flaw.

​

"Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists."
--Yes, Real scientists don't do cover-ups, but real scientists do revisions.

​

---------------

​

---

And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand. When do creation "scientists" ever put the corner stone of their whole theory on the beginings of the world to the test? When do they ever ask the important all question "IS the Bible the INNERANT word of God"?

​

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

quote:

---

And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand.

---

Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fussion". Boy, were they shot down.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe