What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
They are not just doing science Schraf. I'll agree with that. But an organization that does things other than science can also do science.

---

Look, TB.The SCIENTISTS who publish for AiG are required to make certain conclusions about nature BEFORE THEY EVER DO ANY RESEARCH. These a priori conclusions are plainly stated as Chritian, religious, theological, INFALLIBLE givens.This means that they are NOT DOING SCIENCE.End of story, period, fini.One of the most important elements of scientific inquiry is that it is tentative. Tentativity means that anything and everything in science is subject to change in the light of evidence.This is NOT THE CASE with AiG. No evidence, ever, can contradict the Bible. This is a watertight dogma, not science.So, whatever the AiG people are doing, even though they want to call it science, and you would dearly like it to be science, it isn't even remotely like science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You're right Mammuthus, I'll start a new thread.

---

This new thread is "Does gene reuse and genome plasticity have to indicate common descent?".It can be found at http://EvC Forum: Does gene reuse and genome plasticity have to indicate common descent? -->EvC Forum: Does gene reuse and genome plasticity have to indicate common descent?.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

My previous medical research institute routinely forced me to drop lines of enquiry becasue they weren't 'applied' enough. The CIA keeps its research secret. There are lots of organizations that use science in a restricted way. I will agree that AIG is primarily an evangelical organization. But they do science too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My previous medical research institute routinely forced me to drop lines of enquiry becasue they weren't 'applied' enough. The CIA keeps its research secret. There are lots of organizations that use science in a restricted way. I will agree that AIG is primarily an evangelical organization. But they do science too.

---

They cannot, by definition, be doing science if they reject certain evidence before it is even encountered simply because it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.Sorry, there is simply no way around that, TB.If they filter all evidence through the a priori assumption that the Bible is factually correct, and they do, they are violating one of the key tenets of scientific inquiry; tentativity.Please explain exactly how something can be scientific if it cannot EVER be shown to be wrong if evidence comes forward which contradicts it.You have simply asserted that AiG does real science.I have explained to you exactly why they cannot possibly be doing science due to the statement of faith.You simply keep repeating your assertion without explaining how the Statement of Faith is compatible with scientific tenets.

Just a little comment here. Perhaps the AiG (whoever that is) is being honest about their bias. I am not saying that others are operating dishonestly (please don't get me wrong). Even tho' the rules of Science are excellent, it is still people who are involved in it. They choose fields to study, they choose how to study it, they come up with the hypotheses, they interpret the data .... I would suggest that every scientist still is influenced by his own biases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
Just a little comment here. Perhaps the AiG (whoever that is) is being honest about their bias. I am not saying that others are operating dishonestly (please don't get me wrong). Even tho' the rules of Science are excellent, it is still people who are involved in it. They choose fields to study, they choose how to study it, they come up with the hypotheses, they interpret the data .... I would suggest that every scientist still is influenced by his own biases.

---

AiG = Answers in Genesis. It's one of the key professional creationist organizations (based out of Australia, oddly enough). It is one of the top "creation science" organizations often used by creationists arguing against evolutionary theory. They claim to be doing science, which they manifestly do not.I concur with you that every scientist is influenced (or at least, can be influenced) by his/her own bias. However, one of the powerful tools of science is the peer-review process wherein other scientists examine the same data. The assumption is that these reviewers will - even if biased - not have the SAME biases. This is especially true with new claims. If you have some brand new paradigm or explanation that you are proposing to explain some data, for example, lots of scientists are going to take a hard look at it. Lots of questions are going to be asked, lots of arguments will ensue. Eventually, if the data holds up - is replicated, validated, etc - the new idea will be accepted. If it doesn't, it becomes a historical footnote and science moves on to something else.AiG (and a lot of other professional creationist organizations) starts out with an absolute, immutable, undeniable, and even unquestionable claim/interpretation. Any new data that doesn't fit within this claim is rejected. This is NOT science, by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
Just a little comment here. Perhaps the AiG (whoever that is) is being honest about their bias. I am not saying that others are operating dishonestly (please don't get me wrong). Even tho' the rules of Science are excellent, it is still people who are involved in it. They choose fields to study, they choose how to study it, they come up with the hypotheses, they interpret the data .... I would suggest that every scientist still is influenced by his own biases.

---

The problem is, Chara, that AiG (Answers in Genesis), which is one of the major Creation 'science' organizations, promotes it's religiously-based doctrine as being supported by science. They actually claim to do science, even though they do not follow the tenets of science.The only reason this tactic is effective is that your averge person is quite ignorant of what the methods and tenets of science actually are, what the claims of science are, and what the evidence shows. AiG and other organizations exploit this ignorance to mislead people into thinking that there is good scientific evidence that, for instance, a global flood occurred, or that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.If people want to tech that these things happened, or that the Bible it completely inerrant, I have no problem.However, if you want to pretend to do science and then claim that science supports all of these religious views, I do have a problem, particularly if you then say that Creation 'science' should be taught alongside real science in publically-funded science classrooms.They co-opt the respectability of science and the power of the idea that something is scientific. They intend for people to believe that their claims are based upon reliable evidence, yet they have no intention of following the tenets and stringent review process of science.To them, the most important thing is to "bring people into the fold". It doesn't seem to bother them to ignore and distort scientific evidence which is contrary to their interpretation of certain parts of their religious writings as long as people belive them.They are not interested in the discovery of nature. They are interested in convincing people that their version of religion is true.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-19-2002]

SchrafThey don't systematically filter science the way you're thinking. You can find articles in the AIG tech journal that discuss data that goes against our expectations. I admit that they emphasize data that is in their favour. But mainstream science is no different.When have the paleontologists apologized for their 'tradesecret', as Gould puts it? We have had 1 or 2 paleontologists admit to 'lamentable' past practices but no real admission by the field as a whole. That was very, very bad science.The field most relevant to evolution has been incredibly biased and you are completely blind to it. In the face of vast, entrenched mainstream bias instead you make pronouncements about small creationist societies. Double standard.AIG is doing a lot to measure up to the modern epxectations of scientific professionalism. Last year they published a long list of arguments creationists shold no longer use. Where is the evolutionary list?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
They intend for people to believe that their claims are based upon reliable evidence, yet they have no intention of following the tenets and stringent review process of science.

​

To them, the most important thing is to "bring people into the fold". It doesn't seem to bother them to ignore and distort scientific evidence which is contrary to their interpretation of certain parts of their religious writings as long as people belive them.

​

They are not interested in the discovery of nature. They are interested in convincing people that their version of religion is true.

​

---

As I so often ask my girls, "Fact or opinion?" Schraf, is what you stated above something that you know is fact (verifiable) or is it your opinion?

ScrafI can't speak for other creationists but I am very interested in how nature works. I am more interested in knowing God and loving my family and friends, but the workings of nature are also a strong passion of mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

---

quote:

---

They don't systematically filter science the way you're thinking.

---

How is this part of the statement of faith from AiG not blatantly admitting that they filter ideas?: Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."This is filtering. They are required to do it. It is part of the doctrine. I really do not understand how this can be viewed in any other way.

quote:

---

You can find articles in the AIG tech journal that discuss data that goes against our expectations. I admit that they emphasize data that is in their favour. But mainstream science is no different.

​

When have the paleontologists apologized for their 'tradesecret', as Gould puts it? We have had 1 or 2 paleontologists admit to 'lamentable' past practices but no real admission by the field as a whole. That was very, very bad science.

---

What are you talking about? Trade secret?

quote:

---

The field most relevant to evolution has been incredibly biased and you are completely blind to it. In the face of vast, entrenched mainstream bias instead you make pronouncements about small creationist societies. Double standard.

---

You are really reaching here, TB. Now you are making that old, lame claim that hundreds of thousands of mainstream scientists are all biased in exactly the same way.BTW, we weren't talking about mainstream science's biases. We were talking about if AiG can be considered to do science.You still have not demonstrated how AiG follows any of the tenets of science.

quote:

---

AIG is doing a lot to measure up to the modern epxectations of scientific professionalism.

---

First, they have to get rid of the statement of faith. Until they do they, they are dead in the water. [QUOTE]Last year they published a long list of arguments creationists shold no longer use. Where is the evolutionary list?[/B][/QUOTE]You still don't get it, TB.First of all, the fact that they have a list of "agruments that should no longer be used", and they expect that all of their people will no longer use them, is very strange if they are following scientific tenets at all.Why would bad arguments, unsupported by evidence, survive at all? Could it be because evidence is not as important as doctrine?The fact that you think that science should even have a similar list of "arguments that shouldn't be used" shows your strange understanding of how science works.Unsupported arguments die a natural death in the scientific process, TB. There would never be a need for a "list" of arguments that scientists shouldn't use, because it is anathema to scientific inquiry to stifle thought or ideas in this way. It is only in the dogmatic, "This is what we are all going to think" religious mentality that this kind of thing works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
They intend for people to believe that their claims are based upon reliable evidence, yet they have no intention of following the tenets and stringent review process of science.

​

To them, the most important thing is to "bring people into the fold". It doesn't seem to bother them to ignore and distort scientific evidence which is contrary to their interpretation of certain parts of their religious writings as long as people belive them.

​

They are not interested in the discovery of nature. They are interested in convincing people that their version of religion is true.

​

---

As I so often ask my girls, "Fact or opinion?" Schraf, is what you stated above something that you know is fact (verifiable) or is it your opinion?

---

It is implied very strongly in their statements and actions.However, I do think that there are probably some very religious people who believe they are doing God's work in these organizations and in their minds, they are not twisting or ignoring evidence.Duane Gish, I think, is one of these people. He is a true believer. To him, and others like him, anything that counts for Creationism or against evolution is true, and anything that counts against Creationism and for evolution is false. Weight of evidence is unimortant. Evidence alone is often unimportant, depending upon his audience.The truth is, when one reads or listens to the majority of Creationists, particularly YEC, it is very clear that they have a particular religious agenda to push and that, just as the statement of faith that AiG puts out, is secondary to any evidence found in nature.Call me crazy, but this indicates to me that they care much more about pushing their religios views than in discovering anything about nature.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-22-2002]

SchrafIMO, if you think historical geology is 'science' in the same sense as Netwonian mechanics, electrodynamics or chemistry I think you are mistaken.The scenarios of histroical geology, whether flood or mainstream are simply that, scenarios. We have our scenario and you have yours. They both have pros and cons. There is no analogy in gravitation or electrodynamics. Of course one can always delve deeper into electrodynamics to get a better understanding but on the issue of the geo-col we disagree at the big picture level, not on fine details.One of us is right and the other is wrong. Both of us are doing science to try and show that our model reproduces the geo-col. You like a model of eons we like one with a huge flood. We're both doing science, we both habve hints we are right, but with all due respect to the historicial geologists here from both camps, the scenarios produced are not comparable in reliability to those of simple physical, chemical or, for that matter, geological systems. The geo-col is not a simple object.The 'trade secret' I was talking about was the paleontological boys' club misdemeanor of not telling us that there were systematically almost no transitonal forms as eventually admitted by Gould et al.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

​

IMO, if you think historical geology is 'science' in the same sense as Netwonian mechanics, electrodynamics or chemistry I think you are mistaken.

​

The scenarios of histroical geology, whether flood or mainstream are simply that, scenarios. We have our scenario and you have yours. They both have pros and cons. There is no analogy in gravitation or electrodynamics. Of course one can always delve deeper into electrodynamics to get a better understanding but on the issue of the geo-col we disagree at the big picture level, not on fine details.

​

One of us is right and the other is wrong. Both of us are doing science to try and show that our model reproduces the geo-col. You like a model of eons we like one with a huge flood. We're both doing science, we both habve hints we are right, but with all due respect to the historicial geologists here from both camps, the scenarios produced are not comparable in reliability to those of simple physical, chemical or, for that matter, geological systems. The geo-col is not a simple object.

​

The 'trade secret' I was talking about was the paleontological boys' club misdemeanor of not telling us that there were systematically almost no transitonal forms as eventually admitted by Gould et al.

---

JM: A quick interjection. I have little time at the moment for these debates since being handed some new editorial repsonsibilities, but I can't let this one go. Geologists worked within the flood paradigm 150+ years ago. The paradigm failed to match the observations. 150+ years of observations has not made things better for flood geologists only much, much worse. There are no critical scientists who accept a Noachian-type global flood because there is nothing (at all) in the rock record to support such an event.
As to the transitional story, Gould was exaggerating to make a point. There are indeed some very nice, fine transitionals in the fossil record (for example amongst the foraminefera). Quote-mining is an old tactic used by creationist, but seldom is substance included.CheersJoe MeertPS: I should be clear of this cloud by mid-January to early Feb{Fixed quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2002]

Hi JoeWell, I simply disagree. The data and the mechanisms of layering we know about now are compatible with a catastrophic flood origin of much of the geo-col. The 19th century guys had little idea about layering under flow and paleocurrents in general.The present lab and field models of catastrophism we have make the flood a very attractive scenario for most formations and the geo-col as a whole.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-22-2002]