This is a modification of a message of mine in the “Arrogance of Elitism” thread. After further consideration it seemed to me that this highlighted a key misunderstanding in the wider context of the whole EvC debate. I therefore thought it might be worthy of a moderated topic in its own right. Admins, as ever have, the final say on this.
THE PROBLEMA common theme in debates between creationists/IDists and science based protagonists is the claim by creationists that theirs is just an alternative point of view that is worthy of equal consideration to the scientific consensus. They often see themselves as the champion of the equally valid, but minority, point of view. This is the cause of much frustration on both sides. Creationists are unable to see why it is that their position is not considered equally valid by the arrogant and superior science lobby. Beyond not meeting the requirement of the majority view they can see no difference between their perspective and that of the accepted majority. Meanwhile the science contingent cannot comprehend why it is that the “ignorant creationist” considers their view and “true” science to be on even remotely equal par. In short creationists see their views as equally scientifically valid but minority opinions whilst science advocates see creationist views as obviously inferior and unworthy nonsense.
So who, if anybody, is correct?
THE DIFFERENCEThe key here is the difference of approach. Whilst the creationistists/IDists see differing but potentially equal points of view the scientific contingent do not see the scientific position as just another potentially valid POV. However this is not borne of arrogance but approach. The scientific point of view is considered, by it’s advocates, to be a highly tested, highly analyzed, highly verified accumulation of evidence, observation and logical analysis developed over many years to exacting standards with continual comparison to nature as the judge of its validity. Models are not borne of any personal or philosophical point of view but are instead the accumulated result of an interweaving body of knowledge confirmed repeatedly by nature itself.
The scientific approach is to test every single conclusion against nature and to build up a model that not only explains but accurately
predicts observable physical phenomena. A model that has nothing to do with how we might
want nature to behave for whatever philosophical reason.
In comparison the creationist POV approach seems to be to work out how you would
like nature to be and to then seek evidence to support this claim.
So when you say things like "it is arrogant of you to assert that your POV is superior merely because it is the majority POV" it misses the whole point of the scientific method. You are equating your night-time musings and bedroom brainwaves with decades of intense research by international collaborations involving some of the keenest minds on the planet.
In summary established scientific theories are not
just POVs in the sense that is so often described by the advocates of creationism/IDism.
COMPETING THEORIESIn science when two theories compete they need to both equally explain all the currently observable evidence. They are then pitted head to head by means of predicting different results regarding as yet unknown phenomenon. The theory that is ultimately accepted as the scientific consensus is the theory that makes the most accurate predictions and leads to new evidence being discovered.
SCIENCE VS CREATIONISM/IDISMCreationist/IDist models do not follow these exacting methods. That is why they lead to no discoveries. That is why they are so unreliable as conclusions. That is why they are unscientific.
ID models of cosmology and evolution fail to explain even a fraction of the observable evidence. They also make no observable predictions. And have
NEVER EVER led to a single discovery
How can you honestly claim that creationist/ID claims are competing theories by any even vaguely scientific measure?
™ Version 4.2