XXXX Science

I agree with what been said so far in this thread on the science side.Introducing the term supernatural into the discussion is almost always confusing. Anything that can have a detectable effect on the natural world is natural. Therefore, anything supernatural cannot have a detectable effect on the natural world, because if it did then it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, it would be natural. If you use this definition of supernatural then your summary of my views is correct. God cannot be an object of scientific study unless he is detectable in the natural world, and therefore science can make no comment about God.But if you're using a different definition of supernatural, a definition where supernatural events take place in the natural world and are detectable, such as the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea and appearances in the clouds, then of course the supernatural and God can be objects of scientific study, and of course science can comment about them. By this definition all that can be said about God is that there is no scientific evidence for him.Science doesn't exclude anything detectable as an object of study. If we can reliably detect it then we can study it scientifically. Science cannot be atheistic because that would exclude something from study, namely God. There's no a-ESP science, there's no a-UFO science, there's no atherapeutic touch science, there's no aclairvoyance science, there's no atelekenesis science. There's only science that studies the natural world. About things for which there is no evidence science can only be agnostic.Creation science isn't science for many reasons, but one of them is that it is amacro-evolution because it excludes the possibility of evolution beyond kinds, whatever kinds are. Because it excludes a natural phenomena detectable in the natural world as a possibility, it isn't science.--Percy

Why not naturalistic, tentative, replicable, peer-reviewed science?Science *does* have a definition, and putting some of the terms of its definition in front of it as modifiers doesn't really address the topic of this thread. Science is naturalistic. Science that isn't naturalistic isn't another kind of science, it just isn't science at all. The same is true of all the other modifiers. In other words, science that isn't tentative isn't another kind of science, it just isn't science at all, and so forth with the other modifiers.The opening post asks, "What actually is 'creation science'?" Well, if it is different from what mainstream science thinks of as science, then it must be different in some way regarding the qualities I mentioned above: naturalistic, tentative, replicable, peer-reviewed.So, is creation science non-naturalistic? In other words, does creation science claim to be able to study non-natural phenomena? How, exactly?Of is creation science non-tentative? In other words, does creation science claim its findings are timeless truths? What does it do if something new is learned that is inconsistent with one of the timeless truths? How does it advance and move forward?Or is creation science non-replicable? In other words, do creation scientists accept findings by other creation scientist that they are unable to replicate?Or is creation science non-peer-reviewed? In other words, do creation science journals and conferences accept anyone's work without a review by peers of its quality and how well it follows from already accepted work?If creation science is non-naturalistic, or if it's non-tentative, or if it's non-replicable, or if it's non-peer-reviewed, then it isn't even science. It's something else. As far as the science presented by creationists for consideration by public school boards, it's just creationists saying, "Oh, you mean Genesis isn't science because it isn't natural and therefore can't be taught in public schools as science ? Oh, well then, let me just cross out these references to God and miracles - give me just a minute here - there ya go, science!"The only way creation science can be true science is if it is naturalistic, tentative, replicable and peer-reviewed. As long as it includes these qualities then it is science. When it fails to include one or more of these qualities then it is not science.There's another way to look at it. At heart, science is the study of how the world works. Since creationism is the study of how to create scientific sounding explanations reconciling conflicts of the evidence of the natural world with the Bible, it is not science.One of the best examples of why creation science is not science is the examples of fossil sea shells on mountain tops. Creationists see this as evidence of a great flood, since only a great flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops.Before addressing the non-science component of this view, let me describe an analogy. There's a murder, and the first people to arrive at the scene find the victim lying in a pool of blood and a man with blood on his shirt standing over him. At trial the prosecutor argues that the man at the scene did it because the victim's blood was on his shirt. The defense attorney points out that there was a knife found nearby that did not have the alleged perpetrator's (call him Bob) finger prints on it. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood. The defense attorney points out that the victim's wallet was missing and not at the scene. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that Bob could have had time to hide the wallet. The defense attorney points out that the wallet was eventually found in the possession of a known criminal. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that Bob must have given the wallet to the criminal. The defense attorney points out that clothes were found in the criminal's home with the victim's blood on them. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that the victim's blood on the criminal's clothes must have come from Bob. The defense attorney points out that the fingerprints on the knife found at the scene match the criminals. The prosecutor insists that Bob did it because of the blood, and that the criminal's finger prints were only on the knife because he must have used it while preparing dinner earlier that night. Most people would rapidly conclude the prosecutor has no case, and is a complete boob besides.This is a pretty fair match for what creationists do with the fossil sea shell evidence. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists. Radiometric dating shows the sea shells are ancient, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, radiometric dating is unreliable. The sea shells found on the surface actually turn out to be only the topmost portion of very deep sedimentary layers, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood created all those layers. The sea shells found in the layers differ in a gradual fashion when examined from the top to bottom, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood sorted the sea shells. The composition of the sedimentary layers is consistent with gradual deposition over millions of years, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, the flood deposited all the fine-grained material, and don't believe the nonsense from scientists about floods not creating that kind of that much sediment. There are land layers interspersed in the layers of sea shells, say scientists. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and besides, scientists can't really tell land layers from oceanic layers anyway. The sea shells are on mountain tops because they were deposited on sea floors and then uplifted later by tectonic forces. Only a flood could have left sea shells on mountain tops, insist creationists, and the mountains were lower during the flood.It quickly becomes obvious that creationists aren't really interested in learning how the sea shells came to be on mountain tops. They're only interested in making it seem like the Biblical account agrees with evidence from the natural world, and they do this by ignoring instead of explaining natural evidence. Ignoring the natural is the antithesis of science, and so "creation science" is not science by the accepted definition.Most of what creationists do involves attempts to "explain away" the evidence. One of the most absurd recent examples is happening in a thread here at EvC right now, where someone is arguing against the accuracy of radiometric dating by nullifying the claims of correlation with the 79 AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius by claiming that that eruption never happened.If an evolutionist here were to say something stupid like the standard model of physics had been verified because the Higg's Boson had been discovered, other evolutionists would be all over him correcting his error (the Higg's Boson has *not* been discovered). But a creationist claims the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius never happened, and where are the creationists? Why do creationists allow their own to bring discredit upon creationism through their advocacy of the obviously wrong?Playing word games like, "Try this one for me: naturalistic science," raises the same question. And it has an answer. Fallacious issues like this one are constantly raised by creationists because they have no unified theory of origins and even no agreement on what science actually is. What unites them is not love of science, but opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools. The reason creation science is not science is because the controversy over the teaching of evolution is a religious, cultural and political issue, not a science issue.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Let me say it another way this time. "Naturalistic science" is redundant. Science is, by definition, naturalistic. Referring to science as "naturalistic science" is as redundant as saying "grassy meadow", "spherical globe" or "evil Microsoft."Science *does not* posit that that which cannot be experimentally tested must not exist. But science can only posit theories about things that are testable. Science simply cannot comment about that which is untestable. Having nothing to say about something is definitely not the same thing as saying something doesn't exist.--Percy

As near as I can make out, this sentence says that we know there are scientific efforts underway related to ID and "other non-naturalistic ideology."First, science is not an ideological activity. If your scientific conclusions are a function of your "ideology", then you're not doing science.Second, science is natural. There is no non-natural science. Science that isn't natural is not just another kind of science - it isn't science at all! If you're studying non-natural phenomena then you're not doing science.This has come up many times before, and I can only guess you just don't believe us when we give you the definition of science. You must believe we're just giving you a definition convenient to our viewpoint.It all comes down to the definition of natural. Science has a definition of natural. You cannot take science, change the definition of natural, and still call what you're doing science.In science, any phenomena is natural that is detectable in some way so that it can be studied. Anything detectable is natural, and anything undetectable is not natural.Keep in mind that there may be phenomena that our current science cannot detect that our future science will - those phenomena are natural, too. A couple centuries ago scientists couldn't detect radio waves from stars, and now they can. Stellar radio emissions didn't suddenly become natural. They were always natural, and our definition of natural did not change. What changed was that our ability to detect the natural improved.For this reason science has to be circumspect when speaking about things it cannot detect. When science cannot detect something, all it means is that science can make no comment. It definitely does not mean that something does not exist.But being unable to say that something does not exist is not at all the same thing as having evidence of something. Science has no evidence of God and therefore has no comment about God. That doesn't mean God exists. It also doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science simply has no comment.Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot example might be useful here. Can science prove that there is no teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri (the nearest star after the sun)? The answer is no, of course not, science cannot prove that. Does this mean there *is* a teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri? No, of course not. And hopefully you're thinking, "Well, that's pretty silly, why is anyone postulating about teapots in orbit around distant stars? There could not possibly be any scientific evidence for something as tiny as a teapot at that distance, so why is this even coming up?"Good question. So now let's examine your concluding sentence: There's no scientific evidence for anything like ID, so now is the time to ask the same question as about the celestial teapot: why are questions about ID, something for which there is no scientific evidence, even coming up?--Percy

Hi Buz,You're still looking for some escape hatch in the definition of science by which efforts to provide scientific support for Bible-based beliefs can be considered science.Look at it this way. Say I'm a Nobel prize winning scientist and I'm in my kitchen cooking dinner. Am I doing science? No. Obviously, being a great scientist doesn't turn everything one does into science.Now say I, the Nobel prize winning scientist, am in my study writing a science paper supportive of ID. Am I doing science? To answer that question we first we have to answer a few other questions. Is ID an observable phenomena? In other words, is it something that we can see happening, or in some way make measurements of while it is happening, or can in some way detect that it has happened by way of evidence that the process of intelligent design has left behind? In other words, is this is a detectable phenomena?The answer is, of course, no, but this example makes clear a more important point: Whether I'm doing science has nothing to do with my credentials. Science has a definition, and I'm only doing science if I'm engaged in an activity consistent with that definition. ID isn't science because there is no evidence for the phenomena under study. This is no surprise, because ID is being offered to the world as science by the evangelical community, not by the scientific community. One of the stated goals of the organization most involved in promoting ID, the Discovery Institute, is the undermining of naturalism that is the foundation of all science. Why do they want to do this? Because of how obviously ID is not a detectable natural phenomena and therefore not science by the accepted definition.--Percy

Chris Miller is not a published research scientist. He's a government employed geologist who once gave a talk at Buzsaw's church. Buzsaw entered him into evidence once before in another thread, and he was thoroughly rebuked for trying to create the impression that Miller was an example of a mainstream scientist doing creationist/ID research. I can't even guess why Buzsaw has chosen to mention him again.--Percy

Anything in the natural world can serve as a source of evidence for natural phenomena. In the case of the Bible one has to consider the possibility that the stories of Genesis are not just myths from the beginnings of civilization but actual accounts of what happened. This possibility has been thoroughly investigated, primarily by geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, and found to not be the case. The stories of creation in Genesis are unlikely in the extreme to be accurate accounts because not only is there no evidence supporting or consistent with them, all the available evidence strongly contradicts them.Scientists have also investigated the possibility that the star of Bethlehem was an actual astronomical event, but no support for this possibility has been identified.Those are the only Bible-based phenomena I'm aware of that have been investigated, but this isn't something I stay up on, and I'm sure there must be others. This is not a restatement of the original question, but a different question altogether. The Bible *is* is potential source of evidence, but Creation science is the investigation of phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world, only from a religious holy book. The phenomena creationism purports to study was thoroughly debunked well over a century ago.I've got to say that I just don't understand this need that evangelicals have for scientific evidence for their religious beliefs. There's no scientific evidence for God, heaven, hell, angels or the devil, either, so why the big deal over the six day creation?--Percy

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. When he's writing papers based upon Biblical phenomena for which there is no scientific evidence, then he is not doing science.Credentials are not a criteria for science. Nowhere in any of my efforts to define science for you have I said, "Science is done by people with PhD's." I have also never said, "Everything a scientist does is science." None has yet been brought to our attention, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening somewhere, though you would be correct to guess that I certainly doubt it. That isn't consistent with what I said, and it isn't possible to make definitive statements like this. I once again refer you back to the definition of science. To the extent that IDists are studying phenomena for which they have no evidence, they aren't doing science.--Percy

Any area of interest, whether scientific or not, is defined by the collective beliefs of the group studying that area, meaning that you can't really consider creationists separately from creation science. Creationists approach subjects like evolution and geology with preset and non-negotiable religious ideas, and you cannot separate this quality from the field itself. The field is literally defined by the people pursuing it as an area of study.The tenets of science are whatever the collective body of scientists decides by consensus, and there is a huge amount of consensus. The frontiers of science where findings fluctuate too and fro are but the outer skin of a very thick and solid fruit.But there is no equivalent consensus in creationism, not even "evolution is wrong." For example, IDist Michael Behe accepts that evolution is responsible for most of the diversity of life, and he only resorts to ID for certain microbiological structures that he considers irreducibly complex. But other IDists reject all evolution beyond the kind level. This situation of inconsistency characterizes all of creationism and ID. It's just a jumble of conflicting views and opinions united solely by their opposition to evolution. Creation science is inherently unscientific because it studies phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world. It is perfectly possible to pursue creationism in a scientific manner, as for example John Baumgardner does in some of his creationist papers that are so filled with charts and graphs, but charts and graphs and measurements and analyses are merely the tools of science. They're also the tools of carpenters and budget analysts. Using the tools of science doesn't magically turn what you're doing into science. Just as purchasing a hammer and saw doesn't mean you can produce decent furniture, using charts and graphs doesn't mean you're producing decent science. Of course, the general lay public can't tell the difference, and creationism takes full advantage of this.--Percy

Your "AbE" is placed in a grammatically awkward spot, and I guess I'm not really sure what you're saying "ID science" is, so all I can do is use this as a point of departure.If by "ID science" you mean something like "geological science", which only means "the field of science called geology," then while there is really no legitimate scientific field called ID science, using the term that way is fine because everyone knows what you mean.But if by "ID science" you mean "non-naturalistic science", then that's not science at all. Non-naturalistic science is not another kind of science, it's just not science at all. Just as there is no such thing as a square circle, there is no such thing as non-naturalistic science.What I'm giving you is a fishing pole instead of a fish. Science is the study of natural phenomena. If you want to know if anyone is doing genuine science, just answer this question: Are they studying a natural phenomenon?Young earth creationists are studying phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world, such as creation in six days only a few thousand years ago, and a global flood as the causative force behind most geological structures we observe today. Instead of seeking to understand the evidence for a young earth and a global flood (which they can't do since none has ever been found), young earth creationists seek evidence for phenomena that have no evidence, outside the Bible.IDists seek evidence of specified complexity (Dembski, Gitt) and irreducible complexity (Behe). Both are made-up terms, and both include an unqualified and unjustified assumption, that natural processes are inadequate for producing the structures they think exhibit these made-up qualities. ID also includes an inherent contradiction, which is the infinite regression that leads to the first designer who could not have been designed, thereby contradicting the prime tenet of ID, that a complex intelligence could only have been designed by a pre-existing complex intelligence.So by the definition of science, the study of natural phenomena, to the extent that creationists and IDists are not studying natural phenomena they are not doing science.Now I've given you the fishing pole for catching fish that are real science, it's up to you to use it. As long as you keep in mind that ID creationist science is not actually science at all, at least the examples of it we see presented here, then sure, call it that. This is *not* an example of ID creationist science because it studies phenomena (the existence of ancient cities) based upon evidence from the natural world, and because creationism and ID are not issues of archeology. Conducting a dig at Ur is science, while seeking evidence of a world wide flood is not science, and saying, "DNA is complex and must have been designed," is not science. They could one day become science if it ever becomes possible to make these same statements while citing evidence from the natural world.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Rephrase both first and final paragraphs.

I think this has already been addressed in this thread, but it bears repeating. Science has no "atheistic premise". The best that science can do is note that there is no scientific evidence for God. About things for which there is no evidence science can make no comment. In the absence of evidence science cannot say that there is a God, and it can't say that there isn't a God. In the absence of evidence science can be neither theistic nor atheistic. It can not make any assertions either way. In the absence of evidence science can at best be agnostic.There are those who go on to note that even the agnostic position makes little sense, and to make this point I will again introduce Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. Let us say that someone asserts that there is a teapot hurtling through space midway between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Can science prove that there is no such teapot? No, of course not. Does that make it reasonable to believe in such a teapot? No. Is it reasonable to be agnostic about such a teapot? No. End of argument.In other words, the burden is not upon science to prove the non-existence of things for which there is no evidence, and given the richness of human imagination it makes no sense to declare oneself an agnostic with regard to unicorns or an a-griffinist with regard to griffins. If the religious are truly intent upon making scientifically valid statements about God, then it is incumbent upon them to seek out the valid scientific evidence. It certainly makes no sense to ask everyone else to take positions upon that which has no evidence in the first place.--Percy

What you're doing is taking the qualities of religion and asserting that science has the same qualities. It doesn't.It is people who have preconceived notions, not science. Science is the reflection of the opinions of many people on the evidence, and in general the preconceived notions of individuals balance out. On the frontiers of science where the evidence is paltry and new, then preconceived notions can have a significant influence, but as evidence gathers the influence of preconceived notions diminishes and eventually disappears. In science there is the necessity to conform theory to evidence from the real world, and in science when preconceived notions meet reality, reality wins.Preconceived notions that are constructed upon faith or expectations or popular thinking are dogma, and science is the enemy of dogma. The difference between science and religion is that in science when dogma is uncovered, it's embarrassing. In religion dogma is just an article of faith and is the way things are supposed to be. In religion when dogma meets reality, dogma wins.In other words, one of the primary differences between science and religion is the opposite stance they take with regard to dogma. In religion dogma is good, in science dogma is bad.--Percy

Hi Buzsaw,You seem to have drawn a number of responses, so I'll be brief. I think I have a much different answer on this than everyone else. No, science doesn't have to be correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to be science. That's why there's tentativity, because people, both in performing experiments and in interpreting results, are imperfect. Human weaknesses in this regard are addressed through replication and consensus gathering.One can apply scientific principles to the Bible, but why would they want to? What is the value of a tentative finding to the believers in the infallible and timeless word of God?--Percy

I agree, and when I wrote it I had problems with "peer-reviewed", too, because I didn't want the post to get too long, and I didn't have the time to develop what I really meant by it.The problem I faced when composing that post was how to get across the point that science is a consensus activity, and peer-review was what did it for me, but I didn't devote any time to expanding what I really meant by it. I meant not only the actual process of peer-review as a formal part of the editorial process of scientific conferences and journals, but also the peer-review that happens when colleagues read and discuss the articles after they've been published and/or presented. It is this less formalized but oh-so-much-more-important part of the peer-review process by which consensus's are formed and by which we add to body of accepted scientific knowledge so that future scientific endeavors have an even higher and broader platform on which to build.--Percy