|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | |||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Could you please attempt to make a modest effort to get basic facts down? Kenyon was at San Francisco State, he was not fired, but removed from teaching an intro class on biology and reassigned to teaching labs not made a lab assistant. What Kenyon was introducing into the classroom is questionable at best. He tried to teach ID, but the problem is there is no scientific work that supports ID. He is teaching a science class and in doing so is introducing a "theory" that has no peer reviewed work supporting it and indeed no empirical support. The stunning thing is that the committee on academic freedom found for him. While academic freedom is a wonderful, it seems to have gone too far here. Kenyon was free to do research as he saw fit--he just was limited from teaching concepts that have no supporting scientific work. Cite a peer reviewed piece that he could have been basing these lectures on ID? You seem to have found a perfect example of how creationists are allowed to carry out research in the academy, though teaching isn't allowed because there isn't any research to base it upon. And even then there was support to allow him to teach the Intro class from the university's committee on academic freedom and the AAUP. The big question is, where is the theory of creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, I am guessing the ratio is even greater in favor of those who accept evolution is science departments. They are scientists after all and they use the scientific method. Something no one has demonstrated creationists are capable of using. The problem with your claim is that it claims that the overwhelming support for evolution is biology and other scientific departments is due to bias that is unfounded. The bias is a result of studying the issue and as such is not an untested assumption, but an inference derived from the evidence. Creationism isn't an issue in biology departments because there is no scientific theory related to it. It is a religious position held by conservative Protestants primariy in the United States. You have made the assertion that this is the result of some bias that exists out there, but offered no evidence that creationists are being judged on anything but the merits of their position. After all, if their position is unable to tell us anything about the natural world, it isn't going to be represented in science. You assert that biologists are wrong, but ignore the obvious conclusion when discussing the scientific consensus that the consensus exists because of the evidence. Complaining about the consensus is rather irrelevant unless you can enter into a discussion of the theory and the evidence. The first step in claiming that creationism is scientific would be to provide a scientific theory of creation.
quote: Scientists in universities are making millions of dollars on this issue? ROTFL---you are deluded. Research scientists are comfortable, but they are not making millions of dollars. A few like Gould or Dawkins might, but that would be based on their popular writings as much as anything else. If a scientist were able to provide key falsifications to evolution they would win fame and a good deal of fortune starting with the Nobel Prize. What is especially strange about your claim though is that if biology was operating by this sort of system, why would it still be producing so many results? If, as you claim, biology is simply following a herd mentality instead of the evidence, why is biology making so many breakthroughs? Shouldn't the system be breaking down according to your claims? If the scientific method relies on evidence and inference, how could it work so well in most areas, but be ignored in another?
quote: Again this is an assertion that is based on the unsupported claim that creationism is a scientific alternative. Conversely, and by any reasonable conclusion, one might just understand that evolution is the best theory that fits the evidence. To make this claim you must first address how creationism is scientific and then show how evolution fails. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: No, you need to understand what sort of discussion is occuring. He made a specific claim regarding the finding of a fossil that would be problematic for evolution. I asked for a citation supporting that find. What exactly is unreasonable in asking for that? The claim is one of evidence and therefore logic and common sense are rather hard to use without some evidence to discuss that is nothing more than an assertion at this point.
quote: I have not said they are not biased, now have I? What I have been saying, rather frequently, is that bias is a product of the scientific method. Let's say one is going to test a hypothesis. The test is done and the evidence fits the hypothesis. What does one conclude from the test then? Generally one would conclude that the hypothesis is correct at least until further testing. This is a bias. This is a good bias in relation to the scientific method. Getting up and yelling that one is biased in discussing scientific work is rather silly. Of course, people are biased, otherwise they would have nothing to report. The absurd way the term bias has come to be used in our society seems to rest on the assumption that no one should ever conclude anything or they may be called bias. Any rational and productive humans beings are biased based on the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence. Saying a scientist is biased is the most self-evident claim I have ever heard because if a scientist wasn't biased, they wouldn't be doing scientific work. The point of the scientific method is to determine how the world works. In doing so, one must develop a bias or one isn't doing science.
quote: Nothing has discredited them yet so I'm unclear on your further reference. Perhaps you would like to discuss the scientific theory of creation.
quote: Given your use of the term bias, I have no idea how it is relevant. However, the scientific method does require that one identify tests and carry them out as well as potential falsifications. Perhaps you would like to identify observations that would be potential falsifications of creationism?
quote: Such as?
quote: Or use the scientific method to identify testable hypotheses and test the models. This is the point after all. Of course, we would have to have a scientific theory of creation to test first. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Ed Conrad is your reference? ROTFL---a full blown, out right net kook is probably not the best reference. Hell, he even has his own usenet group--I'm not even sure if Wollman has that.
Of course, Ed is a full blown, out-right net kook who has also been repeatedly refuted.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html Andrew Macrae actually took some time in doing so and Ed has blabbered on for some time about Andrew's incompetence, though he has never offered anything to refute Andrew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
http://posh.roundearth.net/90's.htm
http://www.megabaud.fi/~tsand/miscevo.html The Wall Street Journal was the original source of the top article. Tero kept a series of posts on it as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: How can I rebut something that is not formalized?And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean? quote: Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?
quote: Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?
quote: That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism.
quote: So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?
quote: And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars.
quote: How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified.
quote: As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from. Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another.
quote: So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even.
quote: Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism? Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism? Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Truecreation has chosen to do two things. Open multiple threads and then post assertions over and over again. There is nothing unreasonable about asking him for citations for the assertions he makes. If he can’t cite what he is asserting, then one has to ask why is asserting it in the first place.
quote: Several things. In relation to specific lines of evidence, an excellent source for potential falsifications can be found at the 29 lines of evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Picking out one example here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22 Genetic change is a perfect example for how one could potentially falsify evolution. If we could demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution were inadequate to produce change it would be falsified. To falsify the overarching TOE there are two basic strategies. One would be to identify the key evidences amongst the 29 or to falsify the mechanisms of evolution. In the first case there is a great deal of evidence supporting common descent and it is available above. In the second case, all of the mechanisms we understand currently have been tested in population genetics. Falsifying them could have occurred, but didn’t.Some additional issues with the potential falsification of evolution are here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep96.html quote: quote: First, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not evolution they are separate theories. Either one could be wrong and have no bearing on the accuracy of biological evolution. Second, one of the recently verified tests of the Big Bang involves the testing of background microwave radiation which was detected when tested. Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang.
quote: See the note above about population genetics.
quote: Please cite specific conclusions found as stated in the peer reviewed research or at least work based in the peer reviewed research .
quote: It is an extremely reasonable question actually. Unless the evidence has been purposely tampered with, science should be able to study the natural world. Even if an event occurred that can’t be directly observed, it should leave all sorts of evidence lying around. Even if a supernatural event occurred, there should be evidence of said event occurring and having effects on the natural world. Where is the evidence?
quote: To make this assertion you must first identify a creationist model. Please do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: 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
quote: Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified.
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.
quote: 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.
quote: You have asserted it before. You have not demonstrated that this is true by identifying any theory. Perhaps you could explain how identical retroviral insertions in humans and chimps are explained by the 'creation model.' 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. Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: How do we test this? And how is it falsifiable? You have declared creationism correct because of the current state of the worldnot by any testing with this statement.
quote: Incorrect. A theory should be able to support itself without even mentioning another theory. A theory rests on positive evidence for it, not the lack of evidence for another theory. You should be able to describe the scientific theory of creation and its supporting evidence without even mentioning evolution if it is indeed, a scientific theory. Now, after doing that you might want to compare the theories for parsimony or other aspects, but to describe the basic theory evolution should be irrelevant.
quote: Again, evolution doesn’t concern itself with the universe as a whole. It does explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. Scientific theories don’t explain everything, the explain specific phenomenon. Your insistence on continuing to claim it does is nothing more than a strawman argument.
quote: No, if such flaws existedand you are completely unable to point them out without resorting to a strawman argumentit would be falsification of evolution. You must provide positive evidence of a theory for it to be accepted, not negative evidence of one alternative.
quote: No, it is a horrible example. It shows how devoid of content your argument is. If abiogenesis doesn’t account for the beginning of life on Earth, it is simply false, not evidence for another theory.
quote: Because common sense has little to say here. Common sense isn’t a scientific tool. You make the claim that creationism is scientific. Support that assertion. If you want to say that creationism is correct, but not scientific, you are welcome to your faith. However, you have claimed it is scientific and science has standards.
quote: 1) there are potentially other natural means besides abiogenesis2) You need to provide a testable theory to support you contention if you are going to claim it is scientific. 3) I am not fooling myself, I am pointing out that you don’t understand science and have made erroneous statements regarding creationism being scientific. quote: Assertion. Do you have a scientific theory that can test this? Yes or no? If so provide. If not, admit creationism is not scientific.
quote: Assumptions in science are generally testable and usually have been tested previously. Just assuming something without good scientific reason is not science. It is wishful thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: To make this claim you would need to have a scientific theory of creationism. It may be true that some evidence could be equally handledhowever, there would have to be a competing theory to judge such an issue. Please provide said theory.
quote: So am I and a person’s religion is largely irrelevant to the scientific evidence.
quote: Some do. I have no idea why you made the above claim. External features such as wings or fins are not at issue, but more at issue would be a shark and dolphin sharing identical features internally.
quote: What creation model? Fine, it fits the creation model. Could you be bothered to provide said model instead of just asserting that it fits everything?
quote: You are confused over what the line of evidence states. The TOE as it is formulated, postulates one true phylogenic treeand that is what we find. If we didn’t find that the TOE that is being argued for by science today, would be false. Perhaps there could be two trees or something, but that would be an entirely different theory. You are confused because you have conflated falsifications of evolution as being evidence of creation. They aren’t, they are evidence of the current theory as formulated. The current theory could be falsified, and then other theories would be formulated. Those theories may be similar to evolution as formulated, but they would be different in key points. Your argument is silly because it is based on the assumption that creationism is correct. If creationism is correct, then you should be able to produce a theory. Because there is a successful theory that explains part of creationism claims to explain, does not mean that if that successful theory were to be falsified, that the other alternative is only creationism.
quote: So such a finding would certainly falsify the tree we are working with. What is the problem here? I have no idea why the falsification is not goodbecause we don’t observe it is only a sign of the accuracy of evolution.
[QUOTE]
Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link.
quote: It isn’t. And the references are there so why is a link the standard? I find it strange you are complaining given the references are available and a link to land mammals and whales is also included.
quote: Why would you assume that? Why don’t you bother to go and read some sources actually instead of making poor assumptions? Additionally, you don’t bother even addressing the example? Why not?
quote: Scales that were selected for over generations?
quote: 1) Then it wouldn’t be an intermediate2) I have no idea since there is no way to evaluate claims concerning what an intelligent designer would or would not doyou don’t have a theory and everything seems to fit with what an intelligent designer might do 3) an Ider would then seem to be planting evidence to fool us. quote: So again, all evidence fits the designer? You have the responsibility of explaining such cases in the framework of a scientific theory. Please do and stop this, well God could have done it this way argument that does nothing in supporting a scientific theory.
quote: When you do, why don’t you address the science this time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: The problem is that you are confused about the difference between an assertion and an argument. To date you have made an assertion that evidence for evolution is consistent with evidence for a common designer. You have not bothered to provide an argument about how one infers a common designer other than to say that you believe it. That isn't an argument, that is an assertion. And you have made the assertion repeatedly without supporting it repeatedly. You claim that the thing you assert is as good or better than evolution, but you can't produce the argument for what you are asserting is supported.
quote: You have made this clear. You just haven't supported this assertion in the scientific framework that this discussion would require.
quote: This is untrue and people have repeatedly pointed this out to you. The ToE explains the history and diversity of life on Earth using specific observed mechanisms and corroborating evidence. It is not a theory "that everything made itself." If you want to make a claim, you would need to find a source by a scientist who argues for evolution and then cite exactly where such a claim is made.
quote: You have your facts wrong and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Please correct your understanding.
quote: Actually you are arguing against a strawman argument.
quote: That isn't a model, it is an assertion. You need to demonstrate how you would test such a claim, what confirming evidence exists and what are the potential falsifications.
quote: That would be quite a silly enterprise given no one is arguing any such thing. Again, you are trying to argue against a strawman argument.
quote: The details of ToE have been given to you. Why should someone create a theory that already exists and is operationalized?
quote: The scientific method. I have pointed out why several times.
quote: Speaking of heads and walls, what do you think the 29 lines of evidence is?
quote: Why not? Fiat by cobra?
quote: No, you made some amorphous claims concerning how the evidence was not exclusive without any way of telling if your claims were correct. You didn't bother to address the falsifications in any meaningful manner.
quote: You don't have a model. You have an assertion. Those are my own words. Please provide a scientific model.
quote: Why would one create their own model of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Unfortunately the scientific method is designed to test "interpretations" of the data. Please provide how to test the creation "model" that everyone keeps claiming exists. Indeed, weren't you off to come up with one? What happened there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
A question has been posted in a new thread. Please address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
And science is designed to choose between different interpretations. This isn't a postmodern enterprise. Saying you have a different interpretation is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your 'interpretation' stands up to being tested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Congratulations. You have just changed the scientific method. Of course, you are completely wrong, and in a manner that is astounding. Science is a method that infers from tests of hypotheses. Those tests seek out evidence to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. You seem to be redefining it as a collection of facts. This is simply incorrect. The scientific method is specifically designed to determine what fits the evidence best. Any claim to the contrary is silly.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024