|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: XXXX Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What actually is 'creation science'?
What is 'Christian science'? Islamic science? Hindu science? Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'? Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? 'Fascist science'?Would 'socialist science', for example, necessarily conclude that we are all born equal? Would 'fascist science' necessarily conclude that there is a genetic elite of some sort? Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific? Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms?(where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of) Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'.If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question - Is XXXXX Science a contradiction in terms where XXXXX is ANY ideology or belief system? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
"Creation Science" is a term used by fundamentalist Christians to try to take their view of the world when it comes to how it is was created, and to take their religious view on how man was 'created' and find 'scientific explanations' for it. Because they start with the preconceptions that the world is 6-12,000 years old, and man was literaly created from dust by God in the garden of Eden, they reject
or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary. In other words, it is not science, but rather religion that is trying to mascarade as science. "Creation science" is not science, but rather the antithesis of science.The scientific method demands that when evidence to the contrary to a theory or hypothesis is discovered, the theory or hypothesis is either modified to meet the new evidence, or discarded. With 'Creation science', if evidence is found to be contrary to the initial beliefs, then the evidence is modified or discarded, or just plain lied about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Yes I agree with all of that (which suggests that we are going to need a creationist or two to get this debate off the ground).
However I am also interested to know (and I would guess from your post than the broad answer will be yes) if you think any XXXXX Science (where XXXXX is ANY ideology/dogma/faith/belief system) is the antithesis of science for the very same reasons you detail? Science is science. I don't see how you can have XXXXX science without it being inherently unscientific. That obviously includes "creation science"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Two examples of the term science being prefixed with another term come immediately to mind.
One is Christian Science, which is a religious denomination/sect/cult (feel free to use whatever suffix is appropriate) which uses the prefix to add legitimacy to the movement. The second is Jewish Science as contrasted with Aryan Science, which was used as a derogatory term by Nazis concerning any form of intellectual achivement in the sciences that was first propounded by Jews. Under this prefix the Nazis exiled under threat of death the German or Austrian Einstein, Freud, Franck, Haber, Willstaetter, Warburg, Jaspers, Gumbel, Litt, Barth, Ebbinghaus, and Lessing (the last of which was murdered in Czechoslovakia). Such persecution helped insure their eventual military defeat. I believe the term Creation Science seeks to do both. Add a false legitimacy by including the term science and to attack conventional science by contrasting it with the "holy" (or is it pure?) creation science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The Jewish science and Aryan science examples you mention are very interesting.
Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? Not just conceivably - the USSR operated under the plant-breeding ideas of Rrofim Lysenko, much to the detriment of their food supple, up into the 1960's. It was more in keeping with Stalin's ideas on Socialism than that nasty old Mendelian-Darwinian inheritance was. Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment? A paragraph from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich may help answer this question:
quote: The Manhatten Project was full of refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. Many were Jews for obvious reasons, some were not, for pretty good, if not equivalent, reasons. By ignoring, or even actively persecuting the proponents of the theory of relativity, the Nazis essentially delayed any hope of creating nuclear weapons despite the best efforts of remaining scientists such as Heisenberg.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science.
In the absence of any creationists to get to grips with.... I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like. Would it be different to science as we normaly mean it in any way at all??If not is that part of the reason why creationists and the like have such a problem with science?? Edited by Straggler, : Atheist Science? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
straggler writes: So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science. We haven't even touched upon Mao. Even during the height of the Cultural Revolution where scientists, doctors, and teachers were persecuted, the nuclear and petroleum industries were off-limits. Such hipocrisy achieved its most blatant form in this instance but is also is a part of current hipocrisy against science. One need only think of the gasoline that came from the ground by using geologic principles used to fuel the YEC preacher's Cadillac.
I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like. Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Atheist Science" would be science based on the absolute conviction that there is no god.
The only thing this does is force the person to use only natural explanations and evidence without any blinders on that issue, but it doesn't change the evidence. It is possible that this might limit some avenues of research, but I am not sure how that would happen. Creationists frequently argue that this is what evolution etc IS because they "take god out of the equation" etc. What science in general is would - should - be classified as is "Agnostic Science" - let's wait and see what the evidence says eh? I think what you want to ask about is: can there be a supernatural science? ... I'm still waiting to see what "Porn Science" is about ... (XXXX?) compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.
I think it is more complex than that. 'Atheist science' would necessarily preclude the role of any sort of creator or designer, on principle, when forming it's conclusions. Conventional science does not have any role for a creator but does it consciously preclude the very concept or is it strictly down to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest a creator/designer? IF the evidence did support it, would the inclusion of a creator or a designer be a valid scientific conclusion? If the answer is No then are we effectively undertaking 'Atheist Science'?Whether in practice 'atheist science' happens to be indistiguishable from conventional science does not detract from the principle. I would say that a creator/designer has to be a potentially valid conclusion for us to be doing non-prefixed science. Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle.If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science.........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then??
I think it has to be a potentially valid conclusion otherwise, in some ways, we would be acting as unscientifically as the creationists by limiting the conclusions before the investigation has even begun. 'Porn science' eh? Let me know if you find any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
straggler writes: Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle.If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science......... Yes, you are right. To approach science with any prior conclusions is not science. If the evidence leads to the involvement of a divinity or an intelligent designer then that is the conclusion according to science. I was viewing the question in the narrow light of athiesm not presuming a deity or ID rather than insisting upon no deity or ID. I stand corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then?? Only if the evidence supported such a conclusion.
I think it has to be a potentially valid conclusion otherwise, in some ways, we would be acting as unscientifically as the creationists by limiting the conclusions before the investigation has even begun. The term potentially valid conclusion really has no meaning. Conclusions come after the evidence. When you start off with the conclusion firmly in hand, you have stopped doing science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024