Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

SCIENCE AS OBSERVATION
The idea of science as observation and explanation alone is a commonly held misapprehension. One that IDists and creationists are especially prone to.
The basis of science is testing. Not observation per se. The testing of theories against the facts of nature. The formulation and testing of hypotheses is the key to the power of scientific investigation. Observation is a means to an end in this respect not an end in itself.
An untested explanation borne of observation is a hypothesis at best and subjectively derived, philosophically biased nonsense at worst.THE TEST OF NATURE
Unless the conclusions we make about nature are tested against nature itself they are unscientific and, in any objective terms, not to be considered reliable. That is why verification by prediction is the gold standard of scientific investigation. We can make our theories fit known facts. We can work our philosophical bias and subjective interpretations around known evidence. We can easily fool ourselves into believing false explanations for known phenomenon.But it is all but impossible to make specific new facts of nature fit our theories of nature. Predictions of new physical phenomenon made from theory and verified by observation are the most objective tests of theory possible.
Thus we achieve a level of objectivity by means of predicted results that is impossible through explanatory theories alone.
Predicted results also open up new areas of research and lead to future discoveries.THE PROGRESS OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
Currently established scientific theories have passed such tests. Currently established scientific theories have opened up new areas and new questions to investigate.
Creationist/IDist positions make no attempt to pass such tests. Creationist/IDist theories have led to no new research areas or discoveries.
Why is this?By predicting new results and opening up new areas of investigation science is forever pushing the boundaries of knowledge forwards.
By claiming an immaterial designer of some sort as an explanation to every conceivable problem or area of ignorance IDism is a backwards looking barrier to progress.ID AS A BARRIER TO PROGRESS
IDism asks no questions. IDism undertakes no investigation into new physical phenomenon.
Instead IDism claims to have all the conclusions in place. The methods of IDism, such as they are, seek only to verify that which is already believed to be known.
How can an endeavor that asks no questions and undertakes no investigation call itself science? How can such a philosophy hope to increase human knowledge?
What new phenomenon has the creationist or IDists method discovered recently? Or indeed ever? What new technologies have been developed as a result of such theories? None? Why is this?Until IDists can predict new and as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of the "God hypothesis" such conclusions will rightfully be considered unreliable, unscientific and ultimately pointless in terms of discovery and progress.On what grounds can IDists/Creationists claim that their viewpoint is scientific when no new discoveries, new technologies or advancement in knowledge has ever been gained as a result of their explanations or research endeavors? Ever.CONCLUSION
In short - Science is a philosophy and method of discovery whilst creationism (in all its various ID forms) is a philosophy of ignorance.Note: Rather than getting into a battle of dictionary definitions regarding what science is and is not I would prefer that people address the arguments being made against ID/creationism as a dead end to progress, knowledge and discoveryEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well actually this is exactly what science is not.Starting from a philosophically biased conclusion and working your way backwards with no potential for the original conclusion to be wrong is the very antthesis of scientific investigation.What if the conclusion you start with is wrong?
You just end up with a heap of misinterpreted evidence and no progress, discovery or anything of ant practical value.

Well actually the complete inability of creation "science" to predict new physical phenomenon does all the proving that is necessary.Name a single new physical phenomenon ever predicted and then discovered by creationist/ IDist "science"?Are creationist conclusions tested against nature at all?
What experiments have been undertaken?
Can it really be called science if no experiments at all are conducted?ID is all about interpreting evidence in terms of preconceived conclusions. Biased explanation, not discovery, is the only possible result. The research you speak of exemplifies this in every case I have ever seen.If you know of any new physical phenomenon discovered as a result of ID then please do share this startling information.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Honestly is it investigation if you start with the conclusion rather than the evidence?
Seriously is it science if your starting point is a conclusion that can only ever be 'proved' right but never wrong?Do you really think the description of science you are proposing as valid when applied to creationist research is a good model for scientific investigation in general?What if we applied this methodology to medicine for example? Or nuclear physics?
Do you see why I might think that creationism/ID is a philosophy of ignorance?
Creationist/IDist methods of research as you yourself have described them would, if applied to any other area of scientific investigation, result in ignorance at best and disastrously catastrophic consequences at worst.How can you advocate such a methodology as scientific or even useful?

I studied physics at Imperial College Well congratulations to you but what has this got to do with scientific investigation and discovery? Yes OK No.
I don't know what school you went to but science is not in the business of "proving" anything.
The correct way to gain understanding and make reliable conclusions is to form a hypothesis and to work out how to test that hypothesis. This will involve determining the logical consequences of your explanation and predicting results whish can then be verified or refuted by experiment or further observation of nature. This can be true in the case of experimental results. Where predictions are made regarding natural phenomenon the observations of those predicted phenomenon can be repeated. Science is about making tested reliable conclusions. The stringent and methodical testing of theories of nature against the realities of nature itself. How exactly this is achieved depends on the nature of the theory in questionan and the evidence available.The key thing is to test theories against reality. Evolution, Big Bang theory etc. etc. have passed countless such tests.Your hapless argument against these areas of science basically amounts to 'I don't like the conclusions therefore they are wrong' and little more.This is hardly surprising given that you are advocating a method of "investigation" (one where the conclusions are known before the evidence is obtained) that makes genuine discovery literally impossible!!!!Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix two quote boxes.

Fair enough. This is arguably the definition of the difference between science and engineering.
Engineers apply well founded and established scientific principles in the creation and working of technology.But how do you think those scientific principles become established and well founded?
They become established and well founded by means of prediction, testing against the realities of nature and a methodological process of verification.I can tell you with absolute certainty that the principles on which the nuclear power plant near you safely runs were not established or discovered via the creationist version of science!!!! A methodology where no experimentation is undertaken, no conclusions are tested and no new discoveries are made!!!So, given this, how can you possibly claim that creationist "scientists" are undertaking anything of any worth at all?

John
You do not actually seem to be presenting any argument against the foundation of my OP that creationist "science" makes no new conclusions, undertakes no investigation into the unknown and is inherently unable to make predictions and thus discoveries of new physical phenomenon.Is that a fair summary?Your argument, such as it is, just seems to be to present dictionary type definitions of science that you feel exclude evolutionary theory and, possibly, include creationist methodologies.Is that a fair summary?If so we need to establish what the overarching aim of science is and to then see how this is best undertaken so that we can then see if either creationist "science" or evolutionary theory meet these criteria.The role of science as far as I am concerned is to establish the most reliable conclusions regarding the natural world.Do you disagree with this statement?

Using this method of yours how do we discover anything new?Can you decsribe the process for me as I am having trouble understanding?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you do not have a hypothesis how can you possibly be undertaking scientific investigation? If the ID/creationist theory is wrong what do you do........?

Surely this is a fine example of a hypothesis that is tested by prediction and then verified by observation?Exactly the sort of science missing from creationist research.Can you givean example of creationist research that meet this pattern of investigation and which has led to new physical phenomenon being discovered?If not, can you really defend creationist science as anything but a barrier to understanding and progress?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We have been here before ICANT.BBT and evolutionary theory have a host of predictions behind them.Why should we even begin to consider any alternative theory until it can at least match the predictive and explanatory power of these aforementioned theories? (For BBT - Abbundance of light elements, CMB exact value,consistency with GR, observed red shift of distant galaxie etc. etc. etc.)Why would we replace a theory successful in these terms, whatever other flaws you may think it has, with one that does not even meet these objective criteria?Does creationist science offer any new answers in your view? If so how?