Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 96 (377258)
01-15-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
01-15-2007 11:07 AM


Re: Naturalism
Hi Percy. I haven't read the thread so my apologies if my question has been addressed.
We know that there are naturalistic projects/studies such as archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al being done for the purpose of rendering support for and/or falsifying ID interpretation and other non-naturalist ideology. If so, is this naturalistic activity doing science and are the IDist PHD science/physics/astronomy doctorates and others doing it as a profession scientists?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 11:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 9:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 96 (377260)
01-15-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
01-15-2007 6:18 PM


Big Bang Type.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 01-15-2007 6:18 PM Taz has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 96 (377306)
01-16-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
01-15-2007 9:12 PM


Re: Naturalism
why are questions about ID, something for which there is no scientific evidence, even coming up?
Because a lot of IDist folks alleging themselves to be scientists, some of whom have physics PHD doctorates are doing archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al as a profession, sometimes for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying creationist IDis origins and other times for other purposes which they apply as supportive to IDist origins of natural things being observed. For example Chris Miller who does government geology for a profession applies some of his professional science data to argue for ID. Others such as ICR alleged scientists teach, do lab work, experiment and the rest of the list above including on site field work for the sole purpose of lending support to IDist origins et al.
Am I correct in understanding your position to be that these creationist people such as some at ICR with doctorates in science and physics, calling themselves scientists are not scientists and the above described activities which they do in their profession is not doing science if those activities have any bearing on being supportive to the Biblical record or some other ID related ideology?
I'm deliberately being as concise as possible in the way I word my questions so as to fully understand your position, which seems to boil down to there being no ID related science being done anywhere and that no matter how much scientific activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 9:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Vacate, posted 01-16-2007 1:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 40 by platypus, posted 01-16-2007 4:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 12:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 96 (377352)
01-16-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
01-16-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Naturalism
Thanks Percy. I just wanted to know exactly what your position is so as not to miss-state/missrepresent it in the future.
So here's what I understand your position to be:
1. A lot of IDist folks alleging themselves to be scientists, some of whom have physics PHD doctorates who are doing archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al as a profession, sometimes for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying creationist IDist origins and other times for other purposes which they apply as supportive to IDist origins of natural things being observed are not scientists as per the definition of science if those activities have any bearing on being supportive to the Biblical record or some other ID related ideology.
2. There is no ID related science being done anywhere and no matter how much research/study/observation activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science.
Correct me if any of the assumptions which I have deduced from your messages are incorrect. Thanks

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 12:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 1:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 96 (377358)
01-16-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
01-16-2007 12:19 PM


Re: Naturalism
Percy writes:
I can't even guess why Buzsaw has chosen to mention him again.
I mentioned him solely as an example of some who use data related to employment involving natural things for the purpose of supporting IDist origins since he does seminars, lectures and public debates relative to creationism/evolution after having been an avowed evolutionist most of his life. He is not one who is reckless in his approach but in fact, quite conservative and careful. He has no website. I'm not sure how far he travels but likely his employment restricts the scope of his operation.
In retrospect, I was remiss in using him for and example since he is not widely known.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 12:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 96 (377475)
01-17-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
01-16-2007 1:07 PM


Re: Naturalism
Percy writes:
I definitely was not addressing the question of whether someone is or isn't a scientist. I was addressing the question of whether someone is or isn't doing science. Doing science isn't a matter of what credentials you have but whether your research is consistent with the definition of science. Baumgardner is a PhD geologist who has published legitimate scientific papers about physical processes deep within the earth. He's also a creationist. When he's writing papers based upon evidence of natural phenomena, then he's doing science.
I assume by this you mean there are ID creationist scientists doing science with nature research/study/observation activity applying to things in nature, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation. Their scientific status by definition ends when they attempt to apply the natural science they have done to support or falsification of Biblical or other IDist origins.
If I have it correct, it appears that we can deduce your position to be that there are ID creationist scientists doing science but (Abe: you are aware of) no ID science being done.
Thank you for bearing with me so as to clarify what your position is. It helps so as to prevent confusion and misunderstanding when in dialog on the science issues that come up from time to time.
My position and I would assume that of many other IDist creationists would be that when natural science is being done by IDist scientists for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying Biblical or other IDist origins, one could call it ID creationist science. An example of this would be archeological and geological research such as on site digging et al at cities and locations named in the Bible et al which might result in verification/falsification of the Biblical account. This IMO would be doing IDist science by observing/studying natural evidence.
Edited by Buzsaw, : clarification as indicated in context.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 1:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by platypus, posted 01-17-2007 1:55 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 01-17-2007 10:37 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 96 (378222)
01-19-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by platypus
01-17-2007 1:55 AM


Re: Naturalism
platypus writes:
At this point, I'd actually like a clarification of your opinion. Are you implying that if any portion of the Biblical account is true, then all of the Bible is true?
My point was to be that the more you have in the record shown to be reliable the more credibility the account receives, the falsifiable lending support to the unfalsifiable effecting a measure of support to the whole.
platypus writes:
It may be quite easy for one to find evidence that the Jew were sent into Diaspora however many thousand years ago through a scientific investigation. But this does nothing to show that Jesus performed miracles, or that God created the world in 7 days. Each and every fact in the Bible must be separately confirmed by independant scientific studies in order to be determined true.
But taking Jesus as an example, if it can be shown that some spectacular falsifyable prophecy of his was fulfilled in our time, credibility to the unfalsifyable other miracles receives a measure of support.
platypus writes:
This is true for any historical reference. If you are performing "creation science," or here defined as determining the accuracy of Biblical accounts, two things must be true in order for this to be considered science. One, you must be willing to accept evidence which argues against Biblical accounts, and two, you must treat the Bible as you would any other historical reference- that is, treat it with a grain of salt. Are you willing to accept these two things?
By the same token, fulfilled prophecy defies conventional science. Again, for example likely scientific stats would show that it is matmatically impossible for a tribe of people to disperse to all regions of the globe and to return to their homeland intact and identifiable as the same tribe of people who dispersed nearly two milleniums later, the OT prophets first making the prophecies and Jesus repeating it a few years before the dispersion some 1900+ years ago.
platypus writes:
If there is a historical manuscript which contradicts the account of the Bible, it must be given just as much weight as the Bible, and the only arbitrator in this conflicting circumstance is discovered archeological evidence, or something like that depending on the nature of the conflict.
Agreed, depending on the credibility the account has shown to have and other factors such as time written et al.
platypus writes:
The point of all this is that if someone performs "ID science," as you call it, the term ID science is misleading. Someone can perform a scientific investigation about the Bible, sure. But there is nothing that should distinguish this from regular old science. ID science is only science in so far as it confirms facts about the world, if those facts also tend to be Biblical accounts, that is secondary and inconsequential to the fact that this is science. On the other hand, if someone is trying to claim that the Bible as a whole is true, then they are most likely not doing true science. This is because proving the Bible to be true requires independantly proving every fact in the Bible to be true, which is more work than anyone can reasonably be expected to pursue in their lifetime.
Well stated. Nobody is arguing that the Biblical account can be proven. My original response was regarding why creationists tend to hold to unfalsifiable ideology. Imo, the same would hold true to evolutionism and the alleged BB. Proving it would imo, require an immensely greater stache of transitional fossils than observed and all numerous allegations of these theories. Thus scientists also hold no claim to proof of their theories.
platypus writes:
He has said that no IDer that he knows of is doing science, which simply means that no IDer he knows of is using the correct scientific means, not that no IDer can ever do science, or even ever do science that supports ID.
Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?
Good questions you've raised in an amiable manner, Platypus and a pleasure dialoging with you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by platypus, posted 01-17-2007 1:55 AM platypus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2007 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 68 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 11:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 69 by platypus, posted 01-20-2007 5:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 6:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024