Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
56 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,592 Year: 5,238/14,102 Month: 159/677 Week: 18/26 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

Message 1 of 3 (783051)
05-02-2016 8:07 PM

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation

It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined

And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory

From this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology

It is these issues that I purpose discussing in some detail to demonstrate that Secular Fundamental Humanists conclusion and the specifics I have mentioned, that alledgedly support thier assertions, are simply not the case

It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation

In post 107 of the thread Why We Should Not Expect Many of Any Creationists, I began to develops arguments in response to these assertions

It is here I would like if permitted to continue these arguments if permitted

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 05-03-2016 1:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Posts: 15642
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003

Message 2 of 3 (783068)
05-03-2016 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
05-02-2016 8:07 PM

The question of Creationism as Science
DawnBertot writes:

would it be possible for myself and Phat or whoever to continue with our creation discussion in another venue or thread?

Yes. I put this in Free For All. Here is the original post i made that started your counterargument:
I thought i might provide a framework, from Creation science found on Wikipedia. The article states that
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[8][9] Creation science is a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts,[10][11][12] and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly[13] and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[14]
They go on to say this:

  • Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.[68] The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[69]

  • Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions[citation needed]. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[70]
  • Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.

  • Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.[71] In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

  • By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.[72] Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.[11][12][73][74]
  • You then responded in several posts, which I shall condense here:
    DawnBertot writes:

    t falsifiabilty while useful is a human contivance and concept. The easiest way to show the limitations of it is ironically to falsify falsifiabilty.

    Heres a simple illustration. Things either exist or they do not. Since they clearly do no other information will Ever contradict or upset that fact. Hence existence is an axiomatic truth even if it is an illusion. Falsifiability can have no application ever where this kind of truth exists

    It should be obvious to even the simplest of persons that no information ever will conclude that things Do Not Indeed exist.

    So Falsifiabilty is clearly limited and is not to be understood as applicable in these instances

    Fortunately design is of The same character as existence itself, it is a clearly demonstratable as an axiomatic truth

    I think we can develope this as we move along in any further discourse

    It's not enough for the skeptic to mentally dismiss design, he needs to show that clear Purpose that follows from intricate design is not present

    Since it clearly is design or creation if you will, it is on the same order of existence itself

    Your simple task is to show in either instance these two things don't actually exist. Should be easy enough correct?

    Thirdly it should be noted that Biological Evolution theories are not testable if we are to apply the principle of falsifiabily.

    The obvious conclusion of BE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Since there is no way to test that theory or falsify it in any respect, either

    You are not doing science or the principle of Falsifiabilty is not required in some instances and it is therefore limited in its application

    Every theory idea or investigation has a natural Conclusion even BE. Since there is no way to falsify it, either you are not doing science or its not necessary, to still do actual science.

    Creationism is on the same order of evidential investigation. It does not rely on the written Word of God for its investigations and Conclusions

    Hence it follows we are doing science in the very same way and coming to conclusions the very same way as that of the so called Scientific Method

    But if someone wishes to challenge my conclusions you free to do so, please have at it

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-02-2016 8:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    Posts: 1993
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-03-2004

    Message 3 of 3 (783072)
    05-03-2016 1:17 AM

    Thread Copied to Free For All Forum
    Thread copied to the The Science in Creationism thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:

    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021