"Creation Science" experiments.

I don't have the impression anyone really understood what you meant in the OP, judging by the comments.This post seems to be a bit more clear of what you meant to discuss. So I'll just give my take here.''creation science'' is an expression I rarely if ever use, so I can't really speak for the people that used it and sparked this thread into being.However, here's how I understand it. It's not about using a different, ''creationist'', scientific method, as you are saying. It is more about a different set of assumptions behind what could be called ''secular science'' and ''creation science''.For example: secular science assumes naturalism, that only nature exists (matter and energy, to put it simply without going too deep into the physics of it).. This assumption leads to another corrollary; God has never intervened into nature in the past.''creation science'' will assume something different, God exists and has in fact acted in the creation of this universe. (through different ways, depending if you're christian or something else).So none of the linked experiments from your OP could be deemed to be strictly ''secular''.My example could probably use some refining, I hope you'll try to get the big picture and won't stop on the details.

However neither of those are assumptions of science.Unfortunately, I see Creationists often making that very claim, often repeating it even after being corrected.Science assumes that only those things that can be shown to exist and that can be evidenced should be used as explanations. Matter and Energy can be evidenced.The problem is that "super natural" has so far never been evidenced. If it could be evidenced, then Science could use it as explanation.Science does not say that "God has never intervened into nature in the past" but rather that no evidence has ever been presented showing that God has intervened and so far no explanation has required the insertion of God or magic.IF, an experiment could be designed that requires divine intervention, and if that experiment succeeded, then that would count as evidence there was some super natural force. Failure would not refute the existence of God or super natural necessarily (that would depend on the exact parameters of the experiment).BUT...even if the experiment was successful, Science requires going to the next step and that is figuring out how the God or super natural force works.Of course, once that is known then the God or super natural force would no longer be God or super natural, rather just another known and understood force.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then give us some experiments to do using your method. I'm pretty sure I have been abundantly clear in that request.{ABE} Here is the rub that sparked this thread into existence. Many creationists here do not seem to accept the scientific method for either certain studies or at all. If you (in the general sense) do not accept the scientific method as it currently is, surely you have an ID/creation scientific method with valid experiments to replace those done with the "secular" scientific method.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Well, Jay, while I appreciate you calling me ignorant in Message 29, I am not here to discuss what creationists do or do not believe. All I am asking for are some experiments using their methods. I've linked to the thread where all of secular science has been bad-mouthed so I don't think it is so cut and dry to say that creationists in general accept a natural explanation for how life coincides with life.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Hi, Hooah. C'mon! You know what "ignorant" means.----- What I'm saying is that natural selection is a peripheral issue. Design doesn't have to deny natural selection, so experiments into the existence of natural selection aren't meaningful for the debate.What I didn't say, but should have, is that, because of this, beneficial mutations, and not natural selection, have the be the focus of any experiment that hopes to distinguish evolution from intelligent design, because this is where they diverge.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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?

Go read through ICR Sues Texas and practically any post on this forum where Buzsaw mentions science. It is almost always in reference to "failed secular science".I have a house full of crazy children at the moment, so later today I will go through that thread and pull some quotes so as not to appear to be trying to make anyone support my case for me. Quite not because there are so many areas of science that they vehemently disagree with because it goes against their fairy-tale book. Perhaps though, I am looking at this issue in the wrong light or too simplistically. If that's the case, I will gladly take some criticisms constructively.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Ok then. I concede that my example was a bad one. However, a simple "no, that is a bad example" or something like that would have sufficed as opposed to calling me ignorant. I have said before that I am not a professional nor even college educated. All of my knowledge is self taught and I am still learning. Perhaps someone could provide a better example in response to "just look at life. It looks designed, so it must be." which is what my invasive species example was in response to. Surely it is not completely off kilter to see where I was coming from.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Oh, you mean "the fall of man"? Yea, well that would be invoking supernatural to explain things that have natural explanations. For other discussions, possibly. However, what I am asking for are valid experiments using the creationist model. If all they have are ones that invoke the supernatural or using variables that cannot be tested for, then they should stay away from science.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

I think you are making a mistake in taking offense to what Blue Jay wrote in Message 29.Firstly, that message was a reply to Dawn Bertot. It was Dawn Bertot who had said that you made an ignorant statement. Blue Jay was calling her out for that, pointing out that if she saw you as saying something foolish, she should have attempted to educate you instead of just calling names.If you read that in context, you will see that Blue Jay was using the words expressed by Dawn Bertot in order to more effectively communicate with her. I don't see any indication that Blue Jay would ordinarily have chosen "ignorant" as the appropriate word to use.

OK. I'm not offended really and I don't want to drag any further discussion down into who called who what names, because I am genuinely interested in learning some creation experiments.Bluejay:
I see what you meant and no offense taken.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Then in keeping with what I see hooah asking for, let's see an experiment where the possibility of a supernatural effect could be evidenced.If creationists are using the same scientific method then they are doing science. If science for the creationist includes the possibility of the supernatural then certainly they can show us the experimental design and control protocols where such would become evident.The problem as I see it would come in the reproducibility and peer review of the logic of the conclusions. Creationists may have a bit of a problem assuming their specific brand of majik in the conclusion where none was evidenced in the data.So if creationists are doing science let's see the design and the controls and where the majik is evidenced in the data not just poofed up in the conclusion. Edited by AZPaul3, : wording.Edited by AZPaul3, : syntax

In no particular order, and not even in entirety, here are some quotes from ICR Sues Texas which led me to create this thread. Message 214
Message 197
Message 32
Message 46
Message 52
Message 153
Message 161
Message 169
Message 226
Message 123
Even Percy noticed it:
Message 284
Now, the way I had originally read what Dawn Bertot was writing was supportive of my original assertion (in line with this thread). However, upon further investigation, I realized that he/she was not of the same camp as the above. Rather, he/she is simply asserting "it looks designed, so it must be". Also, I will note that in Message 250 DB does attempt to posit a possible experiment, only coming to the conclusion that "it looks designed, so it must be".If my line of reasoning behind this thread is skewed, please let me know.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

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?