Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 6:42 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,450 Year: 15,486/19,786 Month: 2,209/3,058 Week: 67/516 Day: 67/31 Hour: 1/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 402 (473630)
07-01-2008 1:08 PM


SCIENCE AS OBSERVATION
The idea of science as observation and explanation alone is a commonly held misapprehension. One that IDists and creationists are especially prone to.
The basis of science is testing. Not observation per se. The testing of theories against the facts of nature. The formulation and testing of hypotheses is the key to the power of scientific investigation. Observation is a means to an end in this respect not an end in itself.
An untested explanation borne of observation is a hypothesis at best and subjectively derived, philosophically biased nonsense at worst.

THE TEST OF NATURE
Unless the conclusions we make about nature are tested against nature itself they are unscientific and, in any objective terms, not to be considered reliable. That is why verification by prediction is the gold standard of scientific investigation. We can make our theories fit known facts. We can work our philosophical bias and subjective interpretations around known evidence. We can easily fool ourselves into believing false explanations for known phenomenon.

But it is all but impossible to make specific new facts of nature fit our theories of nature. Predictions of new physical phenomenon made from theory and verified by observation are the most objective tests of theory possible.
Thus we achieve a level of objectivity by means of predicted results that is impossible through explanatory theories alone.
Predicted results also open up new areas of research and lead to future discoveries.

THE PROGRESS OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
Currently established scientific theories have passed such tests. Currently established scientific theories have opened up new areas and new questions to investigate.
Creationist/IDist positions make no attempt to pass such tests. Creationist/IDist theories have led to no new research areas or discoveries.
Why is this?

By predicting new results and opening up new areas of investigation science is forever pushing the boundaries of knowledge forwards.
By claiming an immaterial designer of some sort as an explanation to every conceivable problem or area of ignorance IDism is a backwards looking barrier to progress.

ID AS A BARRIER TO PROGRESS
IDism asks no questions. IDism undertakes no investigation into new physical phenomenon.
Instead IDism claims to have all the conclusions in place. The methods of IDism, such as they are, seek only to verify that which is already believed to be known.
How can an endeavor that asks no questions and undertakes no investigation call itself science? How can such a philosophy hope to increase human knowledge?
What new phenomenon has the creationist or IDists method discovered recently? Or indeed ever? What new technologies have been developed as a result of such theories? None? Why is this?

Until IDists can predict new and as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of the "God hypothesis" such conclusions will rightfully be considered unreliable, unscientific and ultimately pointless in terms of discovery and progress.

On what grounds can IDists/Creationists claim that their viewpoint is scientific when no new discoveries, new technologies or advancement in knowledge has ever been gained as a result of their explanations or research endeavors? Ever.

CONCLUSION
In short - Science is a philosophy and method of discovery whilst creationism (in all its various ID forms) is a philosophy of ignorance.

Note: Rather than getting into a battle of dictionary definitions regarding what science is and is not I would prefer that people address the arguments being made against ID/creationism as a dead end to progress, knowledge and discovery

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ikabod, posted 07-02-2008 8:29 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-02-2008 9:50 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 6 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 2:33 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 7 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 4:11 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 201 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:25 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2 of 402 (473710)
07-02-2008 6:43 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 3 of 402 (473714)
07-02-2008 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-01-2008 1:08 PM


ID is also a dead start .. it is unable to define the ground state before the designer starts working ...now even creationism does not try that impossible trick ... ID then fails to expalin any process of how the design is derive , how the design is implimented .. and finaly ID is unable to say when the design will be fully realised ..

to recap no start , no middle , no end .... ID is a perfect mythical beast ....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 4 of 402 (473716)
07-02-2008 9:27 AM


I don't think any creationist will take this chhallenge head on. Great posts you guys.
  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 402 (473717)
07-02-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-01-2008 1:08 PM


On what grounds can IDists/Creationists claim that their viewpoint is scientific when no new discoveries, new technologies or advancement in knowledge has ever been gained as a result of their explanations or research endeavors? Ever.

But they already have ALL the answers in their Divine Manual, what do they need to discover?

New vaccines? No, pray to God and you will be cured if you are sincere.

Origin of life? They already know the origin of life.

Dating Methods? They already have the date of the birth of Christ, everything else is relative to that point in history.

Development of languages. Easy, read Tower of Babel.

As for predictions, science is nowhere near the same league when it comes to predictions. The Bible has over 300 preditions relating to Jesus alone that have ALL come true, some written 1500 years before Jesus was incarnated. In fact, everything that the Bible has predicted has come true, that's a 100% record, how does science compare when scientists change their theories every five minutes?

What is it we have evolved from this week, a monkey or a rock? ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 402 (473732)
07-02-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-01-2008 1:08 PM


Creationist/IDist positions make no attempt to pass such tests.

Prove it. One of the more common errors of evos is to make unsubtantiated claims of their critics. You can check out the papers and research at the Discovery Institute, or Til's work in math and physics with the Omega point or any number of IDers and creationists in various fields that test their ideas specifically. In fact, YECers do it all the time and the NYTs reported on their active research awhile back.

But you made the claim. Prove it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2008 11:26 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 8:22 AM randman has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 7 of 402 (473749)
07-02-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-01-2008 1:08 PM


Question: On what grounds can IDists/Creationists claim that their viewpoint is scientific when no new discoveries, new technologies or advancement in knowledge has ever been gained as a result of their explanations or research endeavors?

Answer: IDists/Creationists start with understanding that God, the Intelligent Designer, is the Creator. Then we proceed to discover as much about God's creation as He allows us to discover. To the IDists/Creationists, this is what science is all about, proving cause and effect in everything between micro to macro space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2008 5:04 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 07-02-2008 5:27 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 8:09 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 402 (473751)
07-02-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John 10:10
07-02-2008 4:11 PM


To the IDists/Creationists, this is what science is all about, proving cause and effect in everything between micro to macro space.

Why not let scientists determine what science is all about? Because, the IDists/Creationists are wrong about it.

Then we proceed to discover as much about God's creation as He allows us to discover.

You mean like discovering that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate description of the way things evolve?

IDists/Creationists start with understanding that God, the Intelligent Designer, is the Creator.

You shouldn't start with the conclusion and then look for the evidence. You should start with the evidence and then come up with a conclusion. That's what science is "all about".


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 4:11 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 402 (473752)
07-02-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John 10:10
07-02-2008 4:11 PM


IDists/Creationists start with understanding that God, the Intelligent Designer, is the Creator.

What is it that convinces IDists/Creationists this is a sensible place to start?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 4:11 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 10:10 PM Brian has responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 10 of 402 (473780)
07-02-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
07-02-2008 5:04 PM


science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing (proving) the operation of general laws

IDists/Creationists allow this principle to guide their pursuit of true science, but not theories such as evolution which can never be proven.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2008 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2008 11:23 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2008 9:06 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 11 of 402 (473782)
07-02-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
07-02-2008 5:27 PM


From the understanding that most scientists now have that the universe suddenly came into existance from something smaller than a pin head; i.e. nothing. That's what convinces IDists/Creationists this is a sensible place to start?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 07-02-2008 5:27 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 07-03-2008 3:11 AM John 10:10 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 402 (473796)
07-02-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John 10:10
07-02-2008 10:00 PM


IDists/Creationists allow this principle to guide their pursuit of true science, but not theories such as evolution which can never be proven.

I hope you realize that this singularly silly lie won't deceive anyone who's not already a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 10:00 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 402 (473797)
07-02-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
07-02-2008 2:33 PM


But you made the claim. Prove it.

Very well. This post contains an complete absence of thousands of references to all the nonexistent scientific papers that creationists have utterly failed to write.

Are you familiar with the phrase "burden of proof"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 2:33 PM randman has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 14 of 402 (473800)
07-02-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
07-02-2008 11:23 PM


The lie is all yours in that the theory of evolution is and always will be just a theory, and a very bad one at that.

If evolutionists can reasonably believe that the universe came from nothing, it's certainly not unreasonable to believe that only Creator God could do this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2008 11:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Organicmachination, posted 07-03-2008 12:02 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2008 12:46 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2008 4:17 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3943 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 15 of 402 (473801)
07-03-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by John 10:10
07-02-2008 11:50 PM


Evolutionists have physical evidence.

You do not.

And until you do, you're not going to convince any of us using solely your harsh words and ignorant bantering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 11:50 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 9:25 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
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