What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

More likely that "macro"evolution is misunderstood to be some totally new and different mechanism.

Good points. There is one more I would add: it is cumulative - the evidence and observations are accumulated into the overall pile of evidence and observations. Even evidence and observations that falsify a concept become part of the accumulated evidence and observations.The theories may fade as new or modified versions explain things better, but the evidence continues to exist.The apple still falls, the earth still orbits the sun, light still bends in gravity wells, species still change over time.And denial of evidence is NOT science: the job of science is to explain the evidence, whether it fits the theory or not.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Haven't you read one damn word that's been posted? This would be the same guy who told you about zebras at the north pole, right?Where did he study geology, exactly? Since speciation has frequently been observed, the hypothesis that it can't happen has already been falsified. So what's the point of his "research"?

It appears he may well be doing science; at least to me.He is, however, doing it very, very poorly and his experiment appears to be (as I said earlier) at about the level of a middle school science fair.

I think that they are relevant since they deal with the issue of whether the idea is scientific or simply an excuse to ignore solid evidence. I strongly suspect that the reason that you do not answer is that you have no answer worth mentioning.

quote:

---

For example, Chris Miller, the geologist who did the science seminar at our church is working to falsify (abe: his) creo hypothesis that guppies stop variations of micromutations at a given perameter/boundary, preventing them from mutating out of the species. As I mentioned before this is an ongoing research he does in his home basement lab (abe: with hundreds of guppies). Nobody will ever convince me that this bonafide working ID creo scientist/geologist is not doing science and that what he is doing is not science, peer review or not. I don't see anything in this thread that effectively refutes that argument.

---

This does not seem to be a very good example (and why is a geologist trying to deal with biology when YEC has very serious problems with geology - shouldn't he be trying to solve the problems in his own field ?). For instance we might ask how the experiment is done. Is there any selective force involved which might support speciation ? How is he determining if speciation has occurred ? How is he measuring "micromutations" ? How long has his experiment gone on for ? How is he managing the fish ?There are a lot of questions to be answered before we can confidently declare this to be worthy of being called science. And that is why the lack of peer review is worrying. At the least he should have got someone familiar with evolutionary biology - and guppies - to look over the experiment and work out if it is being done correctly.Still at least we have an example of a creationist who still rejects speciation despite the massive evidence for it.

The experiment is about what one might expect from a geologist. If he knew anything about the area -- science today very often starts with a literature search and some knowledge -- he'd know that a single interbreeding population isn't going to show speciation under almost any imaginable circumstances.It is so utterly silly that it only reenforces the point that the "ID"ists (which as far as I know do not deny that speciation happens through evolutionary mechanisms -- just not all the time; suggesting that this guy isn't an "ID"ist at all) don't do anything that could be called honest inquiry into the nature of the real world at all.Buz misunderstands totally. He has never told us what alternative method he would use to learn and learn with some assurance of not being off the wall wrong about the phaycial world.Until we are shown an alternative method for learning about "things" I guess we'll have to stick with one which seems to work darned well.

But both aren't doing this! No ID/YEC "scientist" is prepared to accept ANY data (i.e. all of it) that falsifies their religious hypothesis. At the same time no ID/YEC "scientist" can point to any observations that clearly support their ideas.Furthermore, no ID/YEC "scientist" has proposed any kind of hypothetical model to rival the ToE that stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.Given these simple facts alone one can quickly conclude that ID/YEC proponents are not practicing science.Also, YECs were given the oppurtunity to provide links to ID/YEC research in another thread. No response as yet....

Jumping back into the fray. I think your outline is excellent and could very well be used as a primer for those without science backgrounds to better understand what science is, or how it generally operates.There are two things I'd suggest for changes... I would replace the above with"It is empirical. This means subject matter is limited to what can be directly perceived by the human senses, or indirectly perceived via interaction with materials which is directly observable."This removes potential side debate on what is meant by the natural world or not. It also makes inclusive some science which is not observable, but highly supported by indirect observation. This might better be said that "It is largely inductive". Deductive methods are used from time to time in science. The question is where the general rules come from to get to a specific conclusion. I would add as a side not that this does point up a difference in science then/now. Actual science involved deductive reasoning in the past, and was quite successful. That it isn't as successful as induction, has made that the better form.I think in some past thread modulous mentioned that it is better thought of as abductive reasoning. I was taken by that suggestion at the time, and think it might be more accurate.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Pointless, substanceless and useless comment, failing to address my high points in the message to which it applied, disregarding forum guidelines. I said nothing about zebras at North Pole. I don't know but do know he's degreed and works in high tech capacity. He was evo most of his career before enlightment on various counts due to his science and archeology employment. What has that got to do with whether he's doing science and what is/is not science? The point of my message was that he's doing science as per this thread, regardless of what's previously been done in the guppie research and to what extent former research as gone.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I know really good scientists that are very much Xian fundamentalist. Thus I don't see that as an inherent block to science, though it may impact some of the work they might do.In your friend's case I do sort of wonder why a geologist is working on biological issues, but having a hobby does not mean one is not doing science either. It seems that his lack of experience in biology might lead to misconceptions which effect his research.From what you wrote, which is quite general, I don't see why it couldn't be scientific. Although it seems to me he'd have a lot of work ahead of him and indeed many generations after him, to prove anything. And even then it would just pertain to guppies (he knows that, right?).It might be of interest here, since you brought that up as a specific test case, that you asked your friend for a more detailed explanation of his work. What exactly is he doing and how does he intend to support a conclusion regarding evolutionary processes from looking at a contained group of guppies?On a side note, I was confused by your response to Percy's post 144. I thought he did an excellent job outlining scientific basics, and your rebuttal seemed to claim there was some other criteria he didn't mention. I didn't get it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

A simple "no" would have sufficed. Let's be precise, then. You wrote: "In the Geology seminar I just attended at our church, open to the public I was told that some tropical zebras and other animals have been found in arctic ice." A geologist who "works in high-tech capacity"? You intrigue me.Incidentally, next time you hear a creationist propagandist claiming that he "used to be an evolutionist", ask him what the theory of evolution is. I always do, and they always turn out to be liars. And the point of my message was that he is apparently trying to falsify a hypothesis which has already been falsified. Why is he wasting his time like this?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I agree that peer review is not necessarily a concommittent part of science. But you have to wonder about the people who avoid it.If someone claims to be twelve foot tall, but runs like hell every time he sees someone with a yardstick, then we have to wonder at his veracity. He's made an extraordinary claim, but he's frightened of submitting it to the same standards of verification as everyone else.This makes him look suspiciously like a liar.

quote:

---

For another example, look at nj's stuff about "direct observation". Who, please, has "directly observed" the energy of a crystal lattice? an uncollapsed waveform? the entropy of a thermodynamic system? the inverse square law? What we observe is that predictions based on such theoretical concepts are consistent with observation.

​

This is essential to science. To adopt fundie notions of what is and isn't scientific would be to abolish science: but they are not, of course, aware of this fact.

---

I'd like to add here that NJ's "picture of the Milky Way" that he posted was not of the Milky Way, but of a different spiral galaxy in the constellation Virgo called M100.See the source hereThe reason I bring this up is that NJ seems to be under the impression that anyone at all has directly observed the entire Milky Way galaxy, and this is why he doesn't have a problem accepting the scientific consensus that the MW is, indeed, a spiral galaxy.Only one spacecraft has ever even made it out of our own solar system, so how does he think one has been been able to go so far out of our own galaxy to be able to turn around and get an image like the one he posted above?Clearly, Juggs has no comprehension whatsoever of the sense of scale of space.Nobody, anywhere, has ever directly observed the entire Milky Way, so how is it that he accepts the mere theory that it is a spiral galaxy?It's these kinds of really impressive gaps in knowledge and background and deep, profound misunderstanding of the most basic and rudimentary methods of science that many, many in the ID camp perpetrate. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Let me get this straight. He has a bunch of fish tanks in his house, which create a nice ambiance according to some people, but can be a costly hobby, he says he is trying to disprove something we already know happens (speciation), he goes around to churches to give seminars about the research he is doing, and he gets paid for the seminars right?Or is there more to the story?Edited by RAZD, : added