What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

I'm just sorry I couldn't persuade you to bet money on it. I agree.The definition you gave was: "Accumulated and accepted knowledge which has been systemized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or true operation of general laws."What have the ICR discovered about the "true operation of general laws"? What "general truths" have they discovered? Again, I agree. Refusal to admit that standard allows a lot of religious loonies to go about claiming that their dogma is "creation science".

Everything that is not good science is not science, if you think about it.We can be "scientific" about packing a suitcase:

quote:

---

sci·ence n.
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

---

Which is about the level of science that studying guppies amounts to.Good science adds to knowledge, builds on things we know, based on evidence, and seeks to predict things useful to us based on how well theories "understand" the universe.Bad science doesn't do this.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.

Buzsaw writes:
As for creationism science I have also cited the work of ICR scientists and archeologists... Percy, below is the message 52 comment from this thead that I am referrig to.http://EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? -->EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? OK, as you say, I'll leave off with Chris Miller and do some more investigation of other science ICR does. I suppose I could say that in their science classes they are doing science regularly in their college level and science graduate school labs and research training, writing science theses et al. Why shouldn't that come under the definition of science as to doing science? I'm quite sure there is other stuff I can get up on them. Give me some time. Percy, I read and assimilated every word of 144 long ago. I would hope you did so also with points I have made. Things you seem to be ignoring regarding what I've been saying:1. Science theory projects begin with hypothesis. Beginning hypotheses of creationists factor in ID whereas beginning hypotheses of secularist hypothesis does not in most evo hypotheses. Interpretation of, for example, fresh water in arctic ice laced with plant life, animals, mud, polen, et al from IDist creo beginning hypothesis interprets as per ID hypothesis where as it does not from secularist hypothesis. Both science hypotheses work from same ice water evidence with each interpreting the observed evidence as per respective hypothesis. Your #144 did not address this.2. Not all science activity is for the purpose of establishing science theory and obtaining peer review. Many given other science objectives may be the purpose for doing the science. Your 144 seems to require all or none to be regarded as doing science.3. I don't think I have ignored any points you made in 144 which apply to science examples I've mentioned.4. Just as you disagree with most creo arguments on what is science, most of us believe you are incorrectly alleging that ID science (as per science hypothesis) does not exist. I believe you said elsewhere that "ID is not science." That's tantamount to me falsly alleging that "evolution is not science". IMO, we could work together to keep the peace here at EvC if both were recognized by all as a viable beginning hypothesis for science debate and activity, allowing each to debate and do science on the basis our own science hypotheses freely and uncensored. So long as it is a cite established policy that ID and creo is not science it's pretty hard to have any meaningful evo/creo science debate.

---

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

Hi all,
I too wrote an email to Chris Miller and he responded. As per jar's suggestion I will post his response in full. And here is my original email: As you can see from his response he claims only to raise guppies as a hobby. I am unclear as to which aspect of pretroleum engineering he does, so don't know if it includes searching for oil or coring geologic layers. I did feel that it was a shame he doesn't participate in online discussions, he seems very well spoken and might have brought some new perspectives from his work.Added: The reason he addressed the "Dr" issue is because that is how I titled the email. It was my error, I prefer to err on the side of caution when I do not know someone's credentialsEdited by Lithodid-Man, : To add information

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Lithodid-Man,You are to be congratulated on your research, this does not reflect well on Buz's integrity.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This is what I felt might be the case, and was part of why I hoped buz could be encouraged to find out the answers. If that isn't a support for evolutionary concepts, I'm not sure what could be. I would really like to see Buz address this point that Miller has made on that topic.

---

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

I would tentatively agree with that statement. I am not really into strict "creation science" (like ICR) so I don't know what they actually do.Its only with regard to ID that I would say that some (and I want to repeat some... not all) of their work does fulfill an older definition. The problem to me is why they'd want to move back when part of scientific progress is improving methodology, and the new methods exclude their work. That they can even admit that to be the case, in their books much less in open court, and no one (on their side) sees a problem... I don't get it. Oh, don't worry then. Sorry that I took it the wrong way. In fact we can skip the more detailed arguments if you want. I'd be more interested in your take on the "doing science" versus "taking part in science" concept I raised. I thought that flowed more naturally than "scientific experimentation" v "doing science".Note on the Miller thing, it appears lithoid went and got what I was hoping buz would. If you were right, which you were, that would have to come out.Though I will say you were also right (in a comment to me) that if we have only one contact on an issue, that person could always keep changing (adding to) his story with no way for us to know different. Thus its useless. This may stand as a testament in the future that people really should stick to papers that can be shown, or are publicly available.Edited by holmes, : clarity

---

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

Sorry Buz,
Anyone anywhere can call themselves a school. They can grant degrees from certificates, diplomas, BA or BS degrees, or graduate degrees. Does not mean squat. Accredation is the key. An accredidated institution has the ability to issue a degree at some level that is meaningful to the rest of the world.It is not anti-Christian bias. Loma Linda University is a graduate level accredited Seventh Day Adventist institution. I picked that one because of their superb biology program. I teach at a Presbyterian college, and we have to deal with accredation issues all of the time. We have a strict review format we have to adhere to be in line with standards. The point is that if we produce a person with said degree, they have to be able to compete with others of said degree from other institutions.I cannot find any evidence that ICR's program is accredited. They don't claim so on their webpage. So they are giving MS degrees... In what? Are they being shut down because of their beliefs or because they are a non-accredited school giving out degrees to paying customers (some un-witting, I am sure)? There is a name for that kind of fraud. Diploma Mills.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Try here .ICR History but I think someone criticized this accreditation, rightly or wrongly, here on EVC as due to influence of the Elder Morris, now deceased. I do not know how mych that, is true.

Of course that is (evidence for evolution) just as domestic breeding always was for Darwin. The question is, is the experienced artificial selectionist who despite the lability discoverable after generations if there is not some "sense" or intuition developing in the subjectivity that indicates that perhaps there are some bounds of variation that CAN NOT be transformed but are ones that cross trait categories that otherwise are traditionally thought of as pertaining to other species such that if one had had intuition of these other species flexibility to change could diagram an incidence of shapes that change but mutually exclusively in the phenoytypes where the genotypes under further nanoselective change might be prodded to either change (hence show the transitional form) or else reveal a physical barrier and thus indicate lack of species possibility from the phenotypic perspective.That seems to be the criticism that Will Provine had had with Phil Johnson who asserted that dogs do not change into anything but dogs. Will knowing chickens the likes of Mr. Miller does guppies said (1996 Standford) that he, Will, did not know of any limits to change and challenged Phil to display them. As far as I know no one has shown this. (My own ideas are to show up the theoretical issues that prevent such ideas from developing in and of themselves. I do think there are theoretical predilections that inhibit the search for such existence of boundaries. Chris Miller may have said there is great variability but he also might have the sense that no matter how much change he has seen in his and other guppies they can not get them to change into plecostomous catfishes(phenotypes) or cichlids(phenotypes) for that matter (but for the duration of his experience he might have first felt and thought that such larger change was possible) even if they were still all guppyish genetically. Gould simply calls this "lumped morphospace" without regard to the clade being discussed. Edited by Brad McFall, : emphhasis on wrong syylable

Hi Buz,The creationist approach to science copies an approach common to religion where it frequently happens that one group, dissatisfied with some or another aspects, breaks off from another to form their own church. Fundamentalist Christians, their beliefs threatened by modern science, have created their own organizations and journals, convened their own conferences, written their own papers, and then they simply called it science.It doesn't and it can't work that way. Science by its very nature is as grounded in objective reality as it is possible for human endeavor to achieve. There are not multiple objective realities the way there are many religions. There is only one objective reality, and science is engaged in understanding that reality as best it can.Conflicting interpretations of evidence can legitimately exist within science, and it happens all the time, but creationism is not one of these legitimate alternate interpretations. This is because during the "gathering of evidence" stage, which includes making oneself aware of existing evidence, creationism is most notable for the evidence it ignores. By ignoring inconvenient evidence creationism cuts itself off from the very universe it is supposed to be studying, and that is why creationism is not science.A more significant reason for why creationism is not science is because creationism is not interested in resolving its differences with true science. It is not interested in building a consensus. It is not interested in participating in the collective activity of science to build a greater understanding of our universe. If they were interested in these things then they would be pounding on the doors of science with their evidence and demanding to let in through the process of submitting their research in the form of technical papers to journals and conferences. And if their views had any merit then they would be making discoveries and finding insights that true science is missing, and scientists would be beating their own paths to the creationist door.But none of this is happening because the creationist goals are religious and theological, not scientific. From the creationist perspective the value of science is to lend support to religious belief in the Bible, not to reach a greater understanding of our universe. This motivation is what leads them to ignore evidence, probably the simplest and most obvious mistake in science.Perhaps the most damning indication of creationism's non-science nature is the answer to the question, "If the Bible and its stories did not exist, would anyone have ever thought that world geology derived from a world-wide flood a few thousand years ago?" The answer is, of course, no, because no real-world evidence for such an event exists.Creationism versus evolution is not a case of differing scientific interpretations based upon evidence, which is what you keep claiming. Why don't you go ahead and suggest an example of research from ICR and we'll make clear precisely which evidence they're ignoring and identify any other violations of scientific criteria. This will help address the question raised by this topic's title that asks what is and is not science.--Percy

The ICR graduate school (founder: Henry Morris) was accredited by an institution called the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, or T.R.A.C.S. (chairman of the board: Henry Morris).The accreditiation criteria include:* "The full historicity and perspicuity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge, and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."* "Biblical Creation. Special creation of the existing space-time universe and all its basic systems and kinds of organisms in the six literal days of the creation week."The graduate school was, therefore, accredited (by the person who founded it) as an institution which teaches fundie dogma as fact.For once, I cannot argue. They are fully qualified to do that.

From your link

quote:

---

The state exemption is good through December of 2001. The federal accreditation is good through 2005.

---

I presume this page is NOT being kept up-to-date, given the present tense used. Or they haven't updated it because the accredation has expired?What is the current status of accreditation and of TRACS?ICR is listed on the TRACS site as accredited and it was last updated on 08/01/2006 - but what is the status of TRACS on a federal level and what does that mean for the schools?Edited by RAZD, : last P

---

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.

Yeah, I noticed that. I get email from ICR and I kinda remember an update this year. That might not be correct however. If it was true then there should be a searchable update. I did not find that in during a quick research for it. But given how much emphasis they put on accreditation if they are not currently under this credit I would bet that they are trying to do something to keep what they already have had.Dont know fur shure, really.Ok, look here.
Not Found | School of Biblical Apologetics
The grad school pages DO look and "feel" different, I could have mentioned that too, as I knew THAT much.Edited by Brad McFall, : found it

I just checked the federally accepted agencies and there is ONE accrediting agency listed under "Christian Education"

quote:

---

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission
1991/2004/F2009
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate" status) of postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.

​

Russell Guy Fitzgerald, Jr., Executive Director
P.O. Box 328
Forest, Virginia 24551
Tel. (434) 525-9539, Fax (434) 525-9538
E-mail address: rfitzgerald@tracs.org
Web address: Meeting A Higher Standard - TRACS

---

From FINANCIAL AID FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS - Accreditation in the United States

quote:

---

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Here you will find lists of regional and national accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit.

---

From Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies

quote:

---

The regional and national accrediting agencies linked to below are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit. The dates specified for each entry are the date of initial listing as a nationally recognized agency, the date of the Secretary's most recent grant of renewed recognition, and the date of the agency's next scheduled review for renewal of recognition by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.

---

Curious point: NO accrediation agencies listed under chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, architecture, and the like.Not a big point, but I am always curious what the "standard" is when people say {X} meets standard {Y}.To bring this side-track back to the topic though, one would think that the difference between SCIENCE and NOT SCIENCE as taught by the different institutions would also relate to the accreditation of those schools:Schools teaching {biology}, say, should all be accredited by the same {kind} of agency, and any NOT in that category should be suspect.Just as I would not expect a school specializing in SCIENCE to be a good place for an ARTS & CRAFTS degree - you'd be better at one specializing in the art or craft of interest.You wouldn't go to a school accredited for THEATER to get a degree in VETINARY MEDICINE or vice-versa.We also have schools of general learning - universities - that teach everything from soup to nuts. They have accredited degree programs in a number of areas.Certainly the ICR being accredited to teach "Christian Education" does not really qualify it to teach science programs.And that was the point of raising the "accrediation" issue wasn't it? Whether they were qualified to teach SCIENCE?Seems to me they are accredited to teach NOT SCIENCE.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

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.