"Creation Science" experiments.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't creation, a form of origins theory? How does one do a scientific experiment on an event that is postulated in history. This sounds silly. Akin to asking someone to do Lincoln Gettysburg address science. That's a historic event. We can use scientific observations to possibly help validate some of the key components of the story, which would lend credibility to the story, but we can not do experiments to scientifically prove an event.

I don't think symbiosis could be used in either argument. That's because it could work well within either school of thought. Only observations that fit within a design paradigm, but that can not be explained by observed natural processes, would seem to fill the bill.So first we would have to ask ourselves what can only happen by a design process and not by a natural one. And how do we test this?

Bravo. I agree 100%. Just getting a feel for how OCD people are here. When I say prove, I merely mean in the sense that something is overwhelmingly supported while not in the least refuted. But I will be more careful when choosing my words from here on out. Isn't this just a rewording of what I said? here's a recap:

Again that's just another way of saying exactly what I said Nij. Boy talk about OCD. People around here are wound tighter than Adrian Monk at a booger picking contest. LOL. Well don't you think that since we are talking about an origins event and both of those paradigms suppose an intelligent source as the origin of the universe and life, then all it would take to falsify this would be any experiment to try and form a living biological organism through strictly natural processes? Therefore the famous Miller experiment (though unsuccessful) would qualify as an ID science experiment because it was an attempt at proving that life could form by natural processes and falsifying ID. Or is it a requirement that the experimenter be a proponent of the theory he is attempting to falsify? Interesting. I pose a question to everyone here. Is the above comment the general sentiments of everyone, or mostly just Nij? I ask because I would like to know why it is funny when people hold a different point of view than you, and fail? It seems like a part of the human condition is to think out of the box and try things a little differently from time to time. When I see someone fail, I don't kick them, I help them up and we both learn from the experience. But that might just be me.

I find this highly odd that anyone, creationist or otherwise, would claim there is an alternate method to do science. Without seeing the exact quotes I can only guess that the person might have been a poor communicator and stated his comments unclear. To be fair wouldn't you say that the majority of creationists and ID proponents claim to use the same scientific methods as anyone else, but only do not exclude any possibilities from the beginning? Even if that possibility is supernatural?I agree that the personal attack was uncalled for and does nothing to address the issue. Such attacks are simply not helpful and actually detract from the side with which the person wishes to promote. But that being said I get how frustration coupled with continuous belittlement can "make daddy want to kick the dog."

That is true. However keeping it fair here, isn't the creationist perspective that the designer did create all species to live harmoniously together, and that the intelligent species homosapien was given dominion over all other created life? And that it was only when they dropped the ball (so to speak), that "invasive-ness" became prevalent? As funny as that may sound to you, don't you think you do have to include that as part of the creationist model?

In post 36 I commented that I didn't think creationists or ID proponents would say that they do science differently than anyone else. And that if they did seem to be saying this, they were likely just poorly communicating the ID/creationist point of view. I suggested that most in that camp claim to do science in the same manor as anyone else with the exception of being open to supernatural as well as natural conclusions. You then presented several examples of people who supposedly were stating exactly what you claimed.However if you will note in Buzsaw's post #197, second line he seems to be confirming exactly the position I said. He seems to be posing the question "Why is it only science when natural only conclusions are drawn." This clearly shows that he feels a supernatural conclusion should not be dismissed when the evidence merits this. Rather or not you or I agree with him we have to dismiss him as an example of "creation science differing from regular science" thinker.Then when I examined all of the examples you presented by "archeologist" I did not even seem to find a phrase where s/he postulated creation science as being conducted differently than any other. A mere reference to a scientist with Christian beliefs is not a reference to some other form of science being conducted.You yourself disqualified Dawn as a good example, and of course Percy is known to not at all be a spokesman on the side of creationists or ID'sts. Therefore, still in the absence of any real examples, can we conclude that perhaps you may have inadvertently jumped to conclusions?

I understand where your frustration is coming from Straggler. There are a lot of "arm chair quarterbacks" out there who don't do anything but gripe and complain about those "reprobate secular scientists." Those are the one's I think your frustration is mainly focused on. All they want to do is to try and force their religious views on creation into a public school system. However lets be real here. Are you really going to exclude all the scientific accomplishments made by scientists of the past who strongly held personal views of a Creator/intelligent designer along with them? Or isn't it only fair to give credit to whom credit is do? To do otherwise it seems to me you'd end up eatin your shorts a lot.

Well "Jar" guess what...what? This speaks directly to my point of getting on this thread to begin with. In truth scientific inquiry and observation must be conducted equally the same regardless of your personal points of view. The statement I was addressing specifically wasn't rather or not ID'sts do science over some black cauldron chanting spells or something. I rather was responding in particular to this comment: Clearly that is not true. If you expected them to wave some sort of creationist magic wand over the data before releasing it, in order for it to be considered "creationist science" then your absolutely right. That's never going to happen.

Hi GM,
thanks for your comments, I liked everything you said. However you seemed to imply that within this modern times, there could be no more Pascals or Newtons lurking out there. I would not exclude this possibility. Thanks again.

This statement is quite different from the previous one. In this one you leave out the notion that creationists and IDists don't ever make any scientific contribution at all. You devote your statement specifically to discoveries made as a result of theories. This is quite a huge difference. I want to really emphasize the difference because it can be so subtle that most do not catch it. We are talking about two separate cases.In the first case we have both people with evolutionary points of view and Creationist points of view working side by side making scientific discoveries completely unattached to their personal belief systems. In this case the discoveries have little to nothing to do with origins science.But in the second case we have the notion that scientific discoveries are being made as a result of personal belief systems and theories derived from them. However lets try and step back from the trees for a second and look at the forest, shall we?Consider the notion that in order to see the said discoveries within the second case, one has to ascribe to that particular belief system. People with either points of view have no problem when it comes to the first case because those discoveries are unattached to their personal belief systems and are unrelated to origins. However origins science by nature is the attempt to piece together a past historical event. When trying to piece together a historical event, you have to recognize it is not a repeatable science. We start with some theories as to what happened and then look to see if the evidence supports those theories. But what do you do when the evidence can be demonstrated, depending on your view point, to be readable in support of either opposing view?Both camps use the exact same data, but logically read it in support of their own view point. The evolutionary paleontologist looks at the fossils and says he has discovered evidence for evolution. The creationist paleontologist looks at the same type of fossils and says they discovered evidence in support of creation. But neither from the opposing camp can see the others discoveries because they view the same data as support to their own theories.In final analysis of the situation we have several problems at work together. Not only do we have two different cases being confused, but we also have origins science having the requirement to hold to the belief system in order to even be able to see the discoveries claimed within that system. And finally to top it all off we have people who don't even know how to adequately represent the system they ascribe to. Straggler, for me to attempt to try such a feat would be an exercise in futility if you do not first ascribe to that belief system. What is required to demonstrate evidence in support of the opposite view (in the second case), requires evidence that can only be explained within one system and which has no logical explanation within the other.And from what I have experienced the boundaries of logic become ever more gray the closer to them we get.

Until you realiZe the naivety of your response you will never even be able to truly see beyond the end of your own nose. You pretend that only creationists are guilty of this type of thinking, but in truth just about everyone including most atheists are as well. If you don't believe me ask yourself this, "What atheistic evolutionist approaches science and says that he will accept whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause?" We both know that their attitude towards science is that "a natural cause is responsible... period... end of discussion."The very exclusion of the possibility of a supernatural source, from the beginning, demonstrates my point exactly. Of course there is no denying that most creationists are the same way. They have their minds made up that the Bible is true "period" end of discussion. But the fact of the matter is that just because either group displays such arrogant bias towards something, does not make it untrue by default. Anyone with a real hunger for truth should recognize this fact. But alas it is impossible to know the truth without first loving the truth, and few are willing to be that dedicated to it. I know exactly what we are talking about here. The problem is most others do not. The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false. I am trying to point out that the statement misrepresents and obscures the fact that there are real scientists of faith. If you are going to say it, then phrase it correctly. What you mean to say is that you don't think any creationists have ever conducted any science that supported creationism. Unless you phrase it correctly you will trip over the words. And to that kind of statement, I again say that you would not recognize the science as achieving that goal if you do not first ascribe to that as even being a possibility.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Note my choice of wording again my friend. I specifically said: "whatever the evidence points to, even if it is a supernatural cause." This would indicate that had the evidence led towards the possibility of the existence of "unicorns" then that possibility should not be excluded. Instead, the anti-unicorn investigator starts out with a preconceived notion that there absolutely can not be such a thing as a unicorn no matter what, and therefore when he follows the "horse" tracks to the foot of a high cliff and they suddenly end, rather than include even the possibility that the animal took flight, he concludes that the creature "spontaneously dematerialized." (Just running with your analogy here of course, I am not indicating I believe in unicorns.)I totally agree with you that a natural explanation is always rather to be the preferred one, but when logic and reason take us beyond natural possibilities... as Sherlock Holmes said, "after excluding all other possibilities my dear Watson, the one remaining regardless of how unlikely, must be the truth."Consider this, if we would have landed on Mars and found that the "face" that made such a stink a while back was in fact formed with some sort of carving tools rather than normal erosion processes, we would have concluded that some intelligent life had to have once, at least visited if not, lived there. Likewise if we hypothetically could prove (note I said hypothetically) that life here on earth could not have been formed by natural causes, this would require us to conclude that some intelligent source was the cause. And if it could also be demonstrated (hypothetically) that our solar system and the very laws of physics of the universe could not have formed by natural causes, but rather had to have been fine tuned and calibrated, then this also would require an intelligent source.Now from their the logical implication for an intelligence with the capability of creating a universe, a solar system, and life requires a supernatural cause. Again I reiterate that I am just talking hypothetically. My point is that you can see how, if such evidence did exist, a supernatural cause would be the only one left. Therefore I think that if the evidence led us down the trail of a possible unicorn, it should be considered as possible before we start inventing materializing and dematerialize horse matter. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think you researched our conversation back far enough because he did in fact make the claim even though it probably was not what he meant (see the very first sentence in post #50). My above statement was taken out of context in my attempt to make people see that they have to clearly distinguish between the two and say exactly what they mean. This is because it gives the impression that those who believe in a divine creator are nothing but a bunch of imbeciles who do nothing to contribute to science. But in truth, most of the science we enjoy today is to the thanks of men and women who did have personal beliefs in God.

I think you make a good point. Possibly not the one you intended, but who's to say that a divine creator of the universe is not perfectly natural?