|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism/ID as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6423 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
quote: I am a Christian but I am also a physicist. Creationism/ID is both a bad theory and it is not science. The two are connected. Science has long ago restricted its subject matter to what is objectively observable and measurable for good reason. It is the reason for the modern success of science. This restriction is essential and must be defended. Since God is neither objectively observable nor measurable it is not an appropriate part of any scientific theory. Furthermore, God has no explanatory power. Besides not being objectively observable, God is practically unknowable. Therefore as part of a hypothesis, God is simply a black box (or black hole) into which questions disappear unanswered without a trace. A hypothesis like this is essentially untestable and that means that whether the research it motivates could be good science, it ultimately fails to be science at all. Science tries to formulate a test by which you can decide whether a theory is correct or incorrect. Simply hunting for evidence to support your theory is what lawyers and salesmen do, not scientists, and it is called rhetoric. The difference is a particular type of honesty which is rather peculiar to science. The fact that Creationism/ID is making it into public schools represents a breakdown of religious freedom, not that there is any scientific validity to it at all. It is the reactionary response to the breakdown of religious freedom on the other side, which has attempted to enshrine secular humanism as a religious theocracy in this country. See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frog Inactive Member |
Can you show us how the hypothesis of evelution is falsifiable. Edited by AdminNosy, : topic warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
What is evelution? Do you mean Evolution? TOE is a pretty broad area - do you have a specific element that you would like someone to discuss?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
mitchellmckain writes:
I am a Christian but I am also a physicist. Creationism/ID is both a bad theory and it is not science. The two are connected. Judge John E Jones III, in his 2005 Dover vs Kitzmiller ruling, makes the same points you do. He ruled that ID is not science because it is 'an inherently religous concept' that depends on the fallacy of incredulity and the fallacy of competing outcomes (that is, that ID is automatically validated if problems in the theory of evolution arise).
Science has long ago restricted its subject matter to what is objectively observable and measurable for good reason. It is the reason for the modern success of science. Well put. Jones argued that attempts to introduce the supernatural violate 'the ground rules of science'. To anyone with questions about the validity of ID theory I think the ruling is required reading. It spells out why ID failed and in the process does a fine job of describing how science works. Page not found | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
That is not the topic of this thread, Frog.
We try to keep thread as focussed as we can given the nature of this medium and the topics dicussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Can you show us how the hypothesis of evelution is falsifiable. OFF TOPIC. The subject is ID. Another thread exists for this. Come on over. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Yes, you can turn this around. But, facts remain the same. Evolution has hijacked Science. REal Science was practised before Darwin. After Darwin, Science has never been Science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
qed Inactive Member |
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, LAWS, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (National Academy of Sciences)
"No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a "descriptive generalization about nature". So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth." In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Scientific American: 15 answers to creationist nonsense Creationism is a collection of untested hypothesies, not yet a theory. This is still science and every hypothesis was once untested however many creationist "scientists" do not adhere to scientific method. My Personal Opinion: As soon as the first non-christian scientist stands up and says "hey, i reckon the earth is pretty young" or "i don't believe in god but it seems like life popped up from nowhere". It might be worth a look into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
qed Inactive Member |
"Yes, you can turn this around. But, facts remain the same. Evolution has hijacked Science. REal Science was practised before Darwin. After Darwin, Science has never been Science."
What makes Darwin's method any different to Newton's. Explanation and ideally facts would be great.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
wecome to the fray, ged.
note on quotes: type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy You can also use "peek mode" on replies to see how others format their posts.
"Yes, you can turn this around. ... The other thing that is notable about inkorrekt's claim is that he doesn't SHOW how it can be "turned around" -- other than by just making the assertion (and ignoring the evidence):
Message 113 Everything that is said about Faith applies equally to Evolution. If creation is based on religion, evolution is also based on the religion of Atheism. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in Creation. One can start by looking at the facts of course. The mountain of evidence of specieation among other things, that demonstrate the change in species over time actually has occurred, is occurring and will occur, of which the only item requiring "faith" is the projection into the future of things seen today. This means having "faith" that the sun will be above the horizon tommorrow ... "Faith" - by definition - is NOT based on facts, evolution is. No comparison. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Now, please explain to me if real science is not being practiced, how is it we have so many new products, services, and buildings that all derived from science? Also explain to me why it was the scientific revolution/enlightenment that brought the world out of the the dark/middle ages, the era when GDP and scientific knowledge actually decreased. But I agree with you on one point. After Darwin, science no longer was truly a servant of the church, designed to do what it wanted rather then seek and understand the truth of the natural world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
First, we're waiting for your staistics on scientists supporting Intelligent Design.
Second, faith is a belief in something that has no evidence or proof. How can evolution be a faith based idea when parts of it have been tested and the evidence grows day by day? And how is evolution atheist? Evolution does not seek the origin of life, it never has. Evolution does not invalidate God. It may invalidate a fundementalist, literal orthodox God, but that does not mean it is athiestic as Diesm fully accepts evolution, as does Buddhism, and a whole list of other religions, including many protestant and catholic sects of Christanity who see genesis as metaphorical. And it is simply easier to believe in Creation then take the time, money and effort to understand evolution. Goddidit is by far the easiest belief then understanding and running experiments in labs that takes years to grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Yes, you can turn this around. But, facts remain the same. Evolution has hijacked Science. REal Science was practised before Darwin. After Darwin, Science has never been Science.
right, and how do you define "Real Science"? it must be really far from what current science is. i'm thinking its some absurd distorted legalist version of the scientific method.namely it HAS to be able to be experimented on in a lab, because thats the most common objection people give for why evolution isn't science sorry but if this is your criteria for what science is, then its wrong, since that pretty much kills half of all science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hughes Inactive Member |
Science has long ago restricted its subject matter to what is objectively observable and measurable for good reason. It is the reason for the modern success of science. This restriction is essential and must be defended. I wish that science actually did restrict itself to objectively observable and measurable conclusions.For example. A fossil is found, the evolutionist assumes it's biologically related to a "simpler" form of life (though there is no objectively observable evidence to lead to such a conclusion). The ID theorist simply concludes that it must have had an intelligent source, due to the type of complexity it contains. Science is far from restricted to the objectively observable. Edited by Hughes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I wish that science actually did restrict itself to objectively observable and measurable conclusions.
no, you need to read more about how scientists relate fossils to each other, namely the structures of the animal, like bones, limbs,spine,if you want to go to lifeforms within a group such as whale ancsters they look at the body structures like teeth skull detail and how they relate to other lifeformsFor example. A fossil is found, the evolutionist assumes it's biologically related to a "simpler" form of life (though there is no objectively observable evidence to lead to such a conclusion). The ID theorist simply concludes that it must have had an intelligent source, due to the type of complexity it contains. whether you like it or not, scienists don't just sit around one day and go "hey you know that skeleton we found last week?" "i think we should place it in the jererastic and tell the rubes its related to fish!" "hohoho!" The ID theorist simply concludes that it must have had an intelligent source, due to the type of complexity it contains.
oh yes the ID "thoery" where anything can mean anything and we don't want to talk about how anything was done who did it and when. yes sir thats a theory alright!so explain to me oh IDist why our retina is backwards, why would anyone make our eyes less useful by placement? the fact that we have a blind spot makes it appear even more insane from an engineering prespective or how about having a large artery running down over the heart, or the crappy way the spine works or the fact that female legs are built all wrong(new one to me) - why are male genitals outside the body? i mean come on even i can figure out that thats hardly a good idea and i'm not some super-all powerful being thats unknown
science is far from restricted to the objectively observable.
well i can truely say that you have no clue about science,or you wouldn't say such a strange thing, you are not talking about science you are talking about some strawman of science As for ID what can you objectively observe about it? IC is inferrence, information is undefined and meaningless, you can't observe the designer, you can't even tell me what features lead you to believe stuff is designed - and ID lies on the idea that another theory has to be wrong for ID to be right, ID doesn't rest on its own ideas its built on claiming evolution is wrong so the default is a designer, who isn't really intelligent.this isn't science this is a mockery of science, when you claim that complexity shows intelligentice you have ask who is the designer? he's complex who designed him? ad nausum till you reach the final designer which is a GOD or most cases THE god of christianity.. And that is religion and not science!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024