Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2019 5:03 AM
20 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,106 Year: 7,142/19,786 Month: 1,683/1,581 Week: 62/443 Day: 2/60 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2743 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 46 of 396 (580568)
09-10-2010 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
09-04-2010 6:09 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
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''.

So, would it be fair, in the spirit of this thread, to have two competeing ideas with a different set of beginning assumptions?
My thoughts being:

Secular - If there was a world wide flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Creation - If God made the world flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Is that fair? Why, if the science is the same but the assumptions differ, would we get any different answer?

''creation science'' will assume something different, God exists and has in fact acted in the creation of this universe.

That is the question though. With a world wide flood, how would the evidence differ? With the creation of the universe what evidence would we expect to find and how does this differ if your not assuming a god from the onset?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 09-04-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 4:37 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 47 of 396 (580593)
09-10-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
09-04-2010 6:09 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
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).

But none of this is really true.

On the one hand, lots of what you would call "secular scientists" and what I would call scientists manage to believe in God and miracles and still do science perfectly well.

Creationists, on the other hand, do not merely think that God exists, they believe that he has done certain specific things, and will advance any hypothesis, no matter how unevidenced, that will protect that belief.

This is why there is no general creationist method for doing science. If there was it would look like this:

Scientist : The boiling point of water at sea level is 100C.

Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are wrong.

Scientist : But I did the experiment. Here's the data.

Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are lying about the data. You evil atheist liar.

Scientist : Come and look. Look here. Boiling water. Thermometer. See?

Creationist : Clearly the devil or God or some form of magic pixie is tampering with your thermometer.

Scientist : But look, I can calibrate it against objects of known temperature, so I know it works.

Creationist : Well, that rests on your materialist atheistic assumption that calibration works and that God never does miracles to confute your secular materialistic calibration.

Scientist : I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Creationist : ATHEIST! ATHEIST! ATHEIST! I don't have to listen to what you say about the measurements you've made because you assume naturalism! This is secular science! You have the wrong assumptions!

---

The only reason that this particular scenario has never played out is that creationists are only obliged to be wrong about some things, not everything.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 09-04-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by frako, posted 09-10-2010 9:02 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 4:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 48 of 396 (580604)
09-10-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2010 7:56 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_9RIBDUU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjJa57htqcI

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 49 of 396 (580607)
09-10-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Just being real
09-10-2010 2:21 AM


Re: List of quotes defining the purpose for this thread
JBR writes:

However if you will note in Buzsaw's post #197......

Buzsaw's Message 197

quote:
Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion?

Looks to me as if he is positing a different form of science........

JBR writes:

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.

Maybe not in so many words, but he does say numerous time that "secular science" doesn't work and should be replaced. I am fairly certain I could find quotes form him that said as much, but he's just a troll anyways.

JBR writes:

You yourself disqualified Dawn as a good example,

For this exact instance? Yes. However, DB does seem to have a different idea of what is acceptable as evidence, as can be still noticed in the ICR Sues Texas thread.

JBR writes:

and of course Percy is known to not at all be a spokesman on the side of creationists or ID'sts.

I said:

quote:
Even Percy noticed it:

Meaning that Percy noticed that these individuals (or the individual he was replying to) seem to think there is a different form of science.

JBR writes:

can we conclude that perhaps you may have inadvertently jumped to conclusions?

That is always a possibility. I don't think so just yet though.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 2:21 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 50 of 396 (580624)
09-10-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Just being real
09-10-2010 2:21 AM


Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments. They don't make predictions. And if anyone can show me a genuine discovery made as a direct consequence of creationist or ID theories I will eat my underpants.

What so called creation/ID scientists do is take the facts and discoveries of genuine science and re-interpret them into a predefined story or world-view that includes supernatural agents for which there is no evidence doing things for which there is no evidence other than the aforementioned interpretation. It is a case of circularity gone mad dressed up in the clothes and language of genuine science in an attempt to take advantage of the respect and authority that genuine science has earned as a result of it's success. Success based on prediction, understanding and discovery that creationism/IDism has made absolutely no contribution to whatsoever.

The ridiculous error that all creationists and IDists make is to think that science is simply a case of going round making observations and then interpreting them into any internally consistent story one chooses to believe. It isn't. Science is about demonstrating a deeper understanding by taking observations, developing theories and then TESTING those theories against reality by predicting further new observations and discoveries that are a direct logical consequence of the proposed explanation for the original observations.

Without this requirement to test ones theories and interpretations against reality, without this ability to predict and progress understanding through discovery, nothing that can be legitimately called science is being done.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 2:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 2078 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 51 of 396 (580647)
09-10-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Straggler
09-10-2010 11:29 AM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments. They don't make predictions. And if anyone can show me a genuine discovery made as a direct consequence of creationist or ID theories I will eat my underpants.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2010 11:29 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 09-10-2010 1:14 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2010 1:35 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2010 1:39 PM Just being real has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30944
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 52 of 396 (580648)
09-10-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Just being real
09-10-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Jbr writes:

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.

No one said anything about that. And yes, if their work was based on Creationism, it should be discarded.

BUT...guess what. Not one of them ever did anything scientifically that included {insert miracle intervention here}.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:08 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:32 PM jar has responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 2078 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 53 of 396 (580651)
09-10-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
09-10-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
No one said anything about that. And yes, if their work was based on Creationism, it should be discarded.

BUT...guess what. Not one of them ever did anything scientifically that included {insert miracle intervention here}

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:

Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments.
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 09-10-2010 1:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 09-10-2010 1:41 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 54 of 396 (580652)
09-10-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Just being real
09-10-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Hi Just Being Real and welcome to the forum.

There are a lot of "arm chair quarterbacks" out there who don't do anything but gripe and complain about those "reprobate secular scientists."

Absolutely. In my experience the people who are most up in arms about secular science tend to be those who know the least about it as well.

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?

Good grief no! But there are a couple of points to be made here. First, the majority of the scientists quoted in your link have been dead for over two centuries. As time has gone on, science has become more and more secular and there has been an increasing trend toward godlessness on the part of scientists. It is probably still true though that a majority of scientists are theists, but scientists are, on the whole, less likely than the general population to believe in gods.

Also, I don't think that your quotes really address the heart of the matter. No-one is claiming that theists can't do good science. They clearly can. The issue is when people claim that they can bring their religious convictions into the science arena and still do worthwhile science. That is something I am extremely dubious of.

Let's be clear; I'm not talking about involving one's religious convictions in a weak sense. If a person is inspired to be a scientist by their religion, I have no problem with that. A person could engage in science in order to discover the truth about God's amazing universe. That's fine. Where the problem comes in is when someone tries to drag God, kicking and screaming, into the lab.

Creationists often claim that they can directly involve the divine or supernatural in scientific endeavours. It is this strong sense of religious/scientific crossover that people are objecting to. It is this kind of direct joining of Christianity and science that Hooah's OP was driving at. I have never seen an example of how this would be able to drive high quality science. I have however, seen a great many examples of "creation science" creating a total mess.

The purpose of this thread is for creationists to provide examples of high quality science that directly involves religious elements. So far, no examples have been forthcoming. Make of that what you will.

Mutate and Survive

PS; Nice brittle-star fossil. I want one!

Added By Edit; Whilst I was writing, you posted this;

Starggler writes:

Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments.

JBR writes:

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.

But this is exactly what many creationists claim to be able to do. They seem to think that they can merge science and religion into a single discipline. That's foolishness, as I suspect you'll agree.

Further, I believe that when Straggler says "Creationists and IDists" he's not talking about people like Newton or Pascal. He's talking about the modern creationist movement. It is not really fair to lump dead scientific greats into a modern anti-science movement like creationism just because they were theists. We have no way of knowing what someone like Newton would have made of modern creationism, but I tend to suspect that he would not approve.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:08 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 6:56 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 55 of 396 (580653)
09-10-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Just being real
09-10-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Name me one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories and I will eat my pants.

Will you do the same if I point out to you discoveries made as a direct result of evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology or indeed any other established genuine scientific theory?

Jbr writes:

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?

Huh? Believing in God has nothing to do with anything here. Belief that God exists is not the same as creationist or ID claims that God necessarily undertook some significant role in nature. The claim that God must have some role in nature is NOT the same as saying "Well Newton believed in God and Newton discovered gravity" so God must exist. That is fallacious in so many ways it is ridiculous. How dare you even conflate the two.

Instead you need to consider what the assertions, theories and logical consequences of creationism or ID predict about the world and then you need to compare how these predictions fare in comparison with whether or not reality agrees.

Simply interpreting known evidence in a way that is consistent with your world view is a pointless exercise in confirmation bias at best. Why don't you instead describe how creationism/ID can be demonstrated through prediction and discovery? Why don't you explain why in these terms it has been such an epic fail?

I dare you to try.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:08 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 8:14 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30944
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 56 of 396 (580654)
09-10-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Just being real
09-10-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Jbr writes:

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:

Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments.
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.

BUT...that is exactly what Creationists and the ID movement do. They begin with a conclusion and then magic the data to fit the conclusion.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:32 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7774
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 57 of 396 (580673)
09-10-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
09-04-2010 6:09 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
''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).

Based on this assumption, what types of experiments would you do in order to test for God's actions in the past or present?

Let's use a "secular" science example. We know from observing retroviruses that they randomly insert into millions of insertion sites. We also observe that the human genome contains thousands of retroviral insertions.

This offers us a way to test for a common ancestor between humans and chimps. Because retroviruses are observed to insert randomly we can conclude that two independent insertion events will produce two insertions at two different spots in the genome. Therefore, the only explanation for two organisms to have the same insertion at the same spot in their genome is if a single insertion was passed down through common ancestry. We then compare ERV's between humans and chimps to see if these ERV's occur at the same spot in each genome.

So what would the "creation" science experiment look like using the additional assumption that God exists and acted in the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 09-04-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 396 (580678)
09-10-2010 3:40 PM


Assumptions
Assumption does not automatically mean wrong or suspect, as creationists would have us believe.

Assumptions in scientific theories and techniques are not guesses, nor are they random and arbitrary. They follow the evidence.

Example: it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate is constant because all the evidence points in that direction. Radiocarbon dating, even though based on this assumption, is considered reliable as this assumption is supported by the evidence.

In some scientific modeling the assumptions may be arbitrary, random, or unsupported by evidence as this is one method of obtaining feedback on those assumptions (in this they act as variables). These models should not be confused with scientific theories, which are supported by immense amounts of data and are not contradicted by any significant data.

This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).

This flawed method is commonly found in creation "science," and has led to the "teach both theories" slogan. Ignored is the fact that science generates theories based on the evidence, while creation "science" is designed to support religious dogma and belief and to sneak that religious dogma and belief back into the schools. There is no theory in creation "science" -- only beliefs which must be supported no matter what the evidence shows.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 5:18 PM Coyote has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 59 of 396 (580683)
09-10-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Vacate
09-10-2010 5:05 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
Hi Vacate,

In my first post, I was giving a general idea of what the difference between ''creation science'' and ''secular science'' at it's most fundamental basis. The difference is the set of starting assumptions. Now, I gave one example of a ''creation science'' assumption, and I chose it particularly because it is maybe the most general one that can fit with just about any form of ''creationism'', from the literal YEC position all the way to the simple ''God sparked the Big Bang''. Passing along the way progressive creationism, theistic evolutionism, etc.

With this in mind I can adress your specific example:

Secular - If there was a world wide flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Creation - If God made the world flood, what evidence would be left behind?

Is that fair? Why, if the science is the same but the assumptions differ, would we get any different answer?

I see where you are going with this, and you are quite correct. The evidence doesn't change depending on what assumptions you have. A world wide flood is a world wide flood and leaves the traces of a world wide flood either it be initially caused by God or by a natural phenomenon.

But, and this is where assumptions come into play, you will interpret the data and evidence differently depending on what assumptions you make. You won't look at the same places, you won't look for the same things, you will construct different hypotheses depending on what you assume to be true from the outset.

It's a bit like in mathematics, you start with axioms and build from the bottom up. The more your mathematical constructions are coherent with themselves through logic, the more confidence you can have that your starting axioms are true.

Likewise, the more your hypotheses and theories based on your assumptions seem to fit the data and predict the data, the more you can have confidence that your assumptions are true.

And this is why you can get any diferent answer. In fact, think about it, coming up with a different answer for the same set of data sometimes seems to be the norm rather than the exception in science. In fact, even two ''secular scientists'' (as I said in the other post, I don't use this expression usually but for the purpose of discussion here I will use it) with the same set of assumptions can come with two different hypotheses for the same data. This is because they each their own 'intuition', which can lead to different mental pathways.

I hope it's all clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 09-10-2010 5:05 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 4:50 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2010 1:21 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7774
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 60 of 396 (580686)
09-10-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by slevesque
09-10-2010 4:37 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
But, and this is where assumptions come into play, you will interpret the data and evidence differently depending on what assumptions you make. You won't look at the same places, you won't look for the same things, you will construct different hypotheses depending on what you assume to be true from the outset.

Can you give us an example as it relates to geology and a world wide flood? How does the assumption that God exists change the processes by which flood sediments are deposited? What observations are we ignoring? For example, where in the ice cores should we be looking for the signal from the world wide flood? Where do we find a flood signal in lake varves?

You also seem to indicate that creation science does construct hypotheses. This necessarily includes the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified. So what type of geologic formation, if found, would falsify a recent global flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 4:37 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 09-10-2010 6:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

Prev123
4
56
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019