Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Ok, if you mean that science has to factor in human thought I'm with you 100%. But that is saying that science is not pure method. If people want to define 'scientific method' as a set of loosely defined tools for thinking people to use in various inquiries, or something like that, I have no problem. In that case it's obvious that the human thought is the important element, and creationists and evolutionists could start to have a conversation. But if you're going to define scientific method as something that rules out the existence of God, or a creator in general, than you had better be able to define scientific method very, very precisely. Again, useful and accurate are two very different things. But I don't really buy the premise anyway, if you take a realistic look at how useful things have been invented or discovered. It usually wasn't science as you're defining it.

The terms reliable, useful truth etc. that you are dismissing in your post are not being used in the way you presume.When something is said to be 'true' in science it does not mean that a roomfull of people have decided this to be the case (as you suggest)it means that when compared to the realities of nature through experimentation, observation, prediction etc. etc. it is found to be wholly consistent with nature.The test against the 'truth' of nature is what makes science different from all other disciplines.The success of this form of investigating nature is undeniableEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I would imagine that the scientific method neither confirms nor rules out the existence of God.But you never answered my other question. Do creationists have another method of logical inquiry besides the scientific method as defined above?

quote:

---

Here's the dictionary.com definition of tenet: "any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement." So we know the scientific methods of prediction and replication are true because they are held by the scientific community? (Whatever that is!)

---

Would you like the word "parts" or "aspects" better? I am not particularly married to "tenets".OTOH, if we were talking about football, and the official NFL rules of the game, and I described those rules as the "tenets of the game", would you think anything of it?

quote:

---

Yes, discovered how? Does the scientific method check itself?

---

Against observed reality.Pretty simple.

quote:

---

If so, it is unproven by the scientific method's own standards. If by some other method, what is that method?

---

The above makes no sense to me, sorry.

quote:

---

Reliability in the commercial world is generally defined as the ability to meet some pre-defined criteria. If you make the same mistakes each time you'll probably get the same results, so this isn't a very useful definition of reliable.

---

Well then, isn't it good that the commercial world's definition isn't the same one used by scientists, as I already outined in my previous message, and that you apparently ignored?

quote:

---

This really isn't a very useful definition either. It really doesn't mean anything more than 'i like the results'.

---

I am sure that the scientists who claimed to have demonstrated cold fusion a few years ago "liked their results", but no other labs were able to replicate what they had done. As much as the physics world would have loved to herald in a new world of endlessly renewable, waste-free energy, it quickly became clear that the positive results of one lab were not much more than wishful thinking.Replication, in fact, neatly counteracts the "I like my results" phenomena, since unless others can repeat what you did or what you observed, what you "like" about your results is irrelevant, since your results are clearly worthless.

quote:

---

It produces useful products perhaps, or something like that, but it doesn't speak to science being in any sense 'true'.

---

How can it "produce useful products" on the one hand, if it isn't also capable of discovering something "true" about nature?

Hmmm, a very good question, actually. Yes, we must, because 'method' implies a reductionist kind of thing, that all reality must fit in some overarching pattern. The pattern itself would not be subject to the scientific method. For instance, science cannot comment on why the laws of nature are regular, except to say there could be no science if they weren't. So for the creationist God is the overarching pattern and cannot be reduced. He is not composed of something else. So it's more like the creationist saying nothing else makes sense unless you assume God. You must examine the evidence to see if it fits the concept, but you can't expect to 'prove' God, because that assumes something more fundamental than God. Whatever your worldview you must eventually get to things that 'just are'. We can never *prove* gravity exists everywhere, for instance, and we may never find what time or space are composed of - they may not be composed of anything but be essential realities.

Science does not prove or disprove the existence of anything which can neither be tested or observed (directly or indirectly).Science does not address or even question the existence of GOD.Now we can proceed. Can we observe distant objects?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, so if I wanted to study why a certain disease afflicts some people and not others, how can I use your method to figure out why this is happening?

Yes, I did answer it, but I say gently, I think you missed it because you've got method on the brain. 'Method' can really only apply to things already known. You need to take a step back and think about what I'm saying: Is there, first of all, really any such thing as the scientific method, and if so, what are it's limits. Must everything be subject to a method? There's a big difference, you know, between forensic science and finding out where the party is this weekend.

Thanks for your reply. Lets keep within the original topic as much as we can, here. Jon seems to believe that creationism is a social movement with no discernible discipline involved. You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating that creationists presuppose God and then work from there.I have no problem presupposing God, (being a believer and all) but Im at a loss to understand why there is even any sort of disagreement between a Spirit-filled scientist and a garden variety scientist that watches Oprah and/or football.

Of course it does! See, this is exactly what I'm talking about, this fantasy definition of science that totally ignores what happens in the real world of science.

I'm not entirely convinced that this avenue is entirely on topic. Regardless it can be quickly and easily answered. The method is well documented in books as well as the internet. How do I know it is reliable? Because it produces real results like the computer I'm sat at. From what you have said since, and from general experience I have a feeling you're going to try and equivocate between reliable and perfect (or 'reliable results' equivocating to 'true results'). Let me cut you off before you even go there, I do not consider the words synonymous. Many different reasons. A new way of doing things is seen to be more effective or efficient would generally cover most of those reasons I imagine. Reality, and the lessons we learn from our experiences with trying to understand it.

---

Since you made no attempt to rebut what I said in my post, just ask questions about it, I assume you concede that the scientific method is not sacred.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Please provide links to the peer reviewed studies on the existence of GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would maintain that science cannot disprove God any more than it can disprove leprechauns.However it could potentially (and I believe to a large extent already has) relieve God of any physical role and therefore the need for any gods or other supernatural beings of any sort.

I think science indirectly addresses the need for gods.However that is not it's aim but an inevitable side effect of providing physical explanations to things that were once the domain of the supernatural.

I think that what you are referring to is the philosophical arguments... The logical fallacies that many anti-Creatorists bring up from time to time. Just so we are clear, God cannot be scientifically proven and yet could very well still exist. (I believe) You seem to imply that the presupposition of Gods existence needs to be a provable criteria.If so, it is provable within my own heart and internal awareness to the satisfaction of my conscience and heart. I feel no need to attempt to prove God to anyone else aside from living the best way that I know how and doing what the Spirit tells me to do as best as I can.Thats just me, however, and its only applicable to this topic in that you said that creation science differs from secular science in that God is a presupposition.