"Creation Science" experiments.

Yes I very much get this hooah. I wouldn't suggest otherwise. The basic concept of what science is-is very clear. What you can't deny though is that variations also clearly do exist, of how to interpret what science is. What I mean by that is (what you refer to as secular science) aka naturalism, says that all phenomena must have a completely natural explanation. This may not show up worded this way in any of the science manuals, but we know that the attitude is there and screamed loud and clear.Intelligent design proponents say that if the most logical conclusion of the evidence is an intelligent designer (even if the implications of that means something beyond natural) then it must have been designed.Biblical creationists say that the scientific evidence happens to agree with the biblical account of all origins. (Consequently that makes all Biblical creationists also IDists, but all IDists do not necessarily have to be biblical creationists.) Again, if I were only asking for the "actual" definition, I own a dictionary. I am trying to convey something else here. You want experiments done by IDists within the ID paradigm that supports the theory of ID.My point is that if you don't allow for the possibility of ID to begin with (i.e. naturalism), then you will not consider those doing the experiments to be real scientists, you will call their experiments "pseudo science," and you will never see their conclusions as scientific. Well there it is folks. ID/creation isn't actually science. I don't know how my point could have been made any more abundantly clearer than this? You want science from somebody on the one hand, but on the other you already have decided nothing they do is really doing science. Under those conditions you tell me, why should I even bother trying?

You accuse me of misrepresenting you when that is what you do. You are like the pick-pocket in the crowd who steals someones wallet and slips it into some poor unsuspecting saps coat pocket, and then you cry "thief" to attract the cops and they find the "goods" on him. Note that I never said Dawkins says they are doing valid ID science, what I said was that he admits they are scientific theories.Here are Dawkins exact words from his 2006 article about "Why there almost certainly is no God."
My assertion was (and still is) that if it were so well defined, we would not have some people on one hand claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories, and people on the other claiming they are not. And then as an example I quoted both you and Richard Dawkins (who are both presumably supposed to be on the same team) but who seem to be in direct conflict with one another about this.

Finally after some 80 posts someone decided to clearly and decisively draw the lines in the sand. So If I present an ID experiment that follows all of the above steps, am I to understand that we will accept it as "science?"

You mean you're finally going to admit that you know what science is?Good, now get on with it.

If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, then I suggest that you find out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and that way you will say fewer things that are blatantly untrue.

If someone had made up his mind that there were no unicorns, and you had a unicorn, wouldn't it be worth your while to show him your unicorn?If, instead, you went on whining out feeble excuses like this, don't you think people would begin to suspect that you didn't have a unicorn?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Stop crying and move on already. You sound pathetic.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

To make it easier to follow the good dr.'s advice here is a webpage that gives an easy to understand explanation of a hypothesis and a theory. Hint: They are not the same thing.Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com

quote:

---

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

​

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

---

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not only did I accuse you of misrepresenting what I said, I included the exact content of the message where you claimed you got my quote.You said..."If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories (and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it), and then people like "Jar" (in post #15) clearly saying they are not. "Nowhere in the article could I find Richard Dawkins saying that ID or Creationism were scientific theories. I can, of course, be wrong but if so, can you point to where Dawkins says they are scientific theories?Second, once again, I did not even mention ID in message 15. If you think I did, then you are saying that ID and Creationism are synonymous which I do believe is true and will so assert.Intelligent Design is just Biblical Creationism in a new packaging. Why not. There are always people that are ignorant of what Science really is, refuse to even learn what Science is, actively avoid learning by creating avoidance schools and home schooling, that understand there is a Gold Mine in telling folk what they want to hear.There are lots of reasons that there is a controversy that have absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Science.But that does not mean I don't have sympathy for you and the challenge you face. I'm pretty sure I have given this to you before but if not, her is a primer on what you need to do if you want ID or Creationism to ever be taken seriously.The thread How can "Creationism" be supported? outlines what you guys need to do and offers you some help and advice. And, as a Christian, I again offer to try to help you move towards your goal.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

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

present a hypothesis use it to predict phenomena test it, try to "poke some holes" in it if you cant poke any holes in it present it here then we can give it a try if we cant find holes in it then publish it let some scientist have a shot at it and if it stands you will have a viable scientific theory and you will be able to call it scienceun disprovable theories though always fall trough if there is a more rational explanation do to the occam's razorEdited by frako, : No reason given.

You might start with #1.Let us know when you can observe and describe (in a manner that others can repeat) one or more supernatural critters, and then we will have a beginning.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, the supernatural beings are the hypothesis by which he wishes to explain the observations.Observing the real world is step #1, fantasizing about sky-fairies is step #2. What's going to give him trouble is step #3.

This is exactly what the RATE Group did. They started by doing the "science." The hypothesis, gathering the data, the testing and analysis.And their science effort showed, and they admitted it showed, what mainstream science had already shown: an old earth.Where they fell down, and where you and all ID fall down, is when the "science" part of their effort yielded results contrary to their pre-conceived conclusion, they invented the majik of their god in their conclusion to negate the data they had found in the science.Part of "science" is drawing conclusions that are supported by the data generated. That is why peer-review is so important to the scientific method. If some majik is not clearly and convincingly shown by the data then concluding that this majik happened anyway destroys the science.And you cannot just say the data supports the conclusion because you want to interpret it so. The conclusion has to be clearly seen in the data and must be of such veracity that there is no other possible explanation. And if in peer-review some other reasonable explanation is found to logically flow from the data then your conclusions are questionable and more testing needs to be done. This is what science does and all science is held to this standard.Creationism cannot do this because creationism starts with the conclusion of majik regardless of what the evidence eventually will show.Creationism cannot do science. And dressing it up in a lab coat, false mustache and calling it ID cannot alter this reality.Re-defining "science" to allow unsupported conclusions is not an option so stop trying.Go ahead, do your thing. Form your hypotheses, gather your data, make your predictions, test the results and draw your conclusions. If your conclusions do not logically and exclusively follow from the data then you fail.Edited by AZPaul3, : Forgot Moose's nice subtitle.

Yes, I will accept it. Also note that experimental tests must also test the null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is false. IOW, you also need to describe possible experimental results that would falsify your hypothesis.You must also show the rationale behind the construction of the hypothesis, and also show how your predictions differ from existing hypotheses.

Edited by menes777, :