Two types of science

I would disagree with whoever made these statements. There is no requirement to "believe" in billions of years or common descent to make scientific discoveries such as oil exploration or curing disease. What is required is that you have a working model - ie. a model of the system that actually works to make predictions. The model that works for oil exploration is one that suggests that the earth is billions of years old. That model WORKS!. You can "believe" that the earth is 6,000 years old, but use the old earth model to decide where to drill and still be successful. There is no YEC model that works for oil exploration.In order for ID or YEC to be accepted as valid scientific pursuits they need to have models that actually work - that's it. It's not about belief or atheism or a scientific conspiracy - it is about what WORKS! There is only one type of science ... the kind of science that develops working models of reality based on empirical (that what we can detect with our senses) observations. We call that science, not actual science or real science, just science. That is simply what science is.Do people make inappropriate metaphysical conclusions based on scientific inquiry? Yes, certainly they do. But that doesn't become metaphysical science, it is simply metaphysical conclusions that science is not intended to address.Your title made me think that you were going to talk about science and pseudoscience as the two types of science. Maybe that's what you mean by metaphysical science. However, rather than inventing a new term, you could just use one that already covers that issue.However, pseudoscience is actually an unfortunate term since the word "science" doesn't really belong in the term at all. The reason these practices get put into this category is that they try to pass themselves off as science. I mean, just read through the list and see some of the ridiculous ideas that have been passed off as science. And why have these ideas been rejected as unscientific? Because 1) they do not have working models, 2) they rely on knowledge from non-empirical sources and 3) they cannot be subjected to adequate scrutiny and possible falsification (or they have already been falsified and continue to be promoted as science). Are you trying to show that Evolution, Cosmology and whatever other sciences conflict with your worldview are not scientific because they do not follow the scientific method?Or are you suggesting that science can be informed by "other sources of knowledge" and still be legit? Or is your point that people make metaphysical conclusions based on physical data and those metaphysical conclusions are being passed off as science? Or ... ??? Why didn't you just present your case in the OP? What's stopping you? Are you still making it up? HBD

I just wanted to add something to your list of definitions Scientific Model: a logical framework intended to represent reality, similar to the way that a map is a graphical model that represents the territory of a city or country. (source)I like to stress the importance of scientific models in discussions like this for a couple of reasons.1) The idea of a theory is so often completely misunderstood, and while educating as to what a scientist actually means when they say "theory" is a good thing, it usually falls on deaf ears.
2) Typically the objections raised are areas of science where direct observation is difficult or impractical, as Marc9000 is doing.
3) Much of the scientific work being done today falls into this category of not being directly observable. The easily observably facts are old news. We have to rely on models to make testable predictions.
4) My 4th reason may be a bit more controversial, but I would say that science doesn't actually study reality directly. If we could study reality directly, we could arrive at absolute truths. Instead, what science studies is what reality appears to be. Reality is an abstract idea, and science needs to deal with concrete, empirical concepts. In other words, everything we know about reality could be wrong, but the scientific process is designed in such a way as to give us the best representation of that reality. That is a model.
5) A lot of creationists and ID proponents claim to have theories about different aspects of their ideas. While they don't meet our strict definition of theory, there is no law against attaching the term theory to any idea (ie. hyroplate theory, hydro-sorting theory). So they can then say, "well we have theories about how this or that can happen." "We are all dealing with the same facts." OK, but what they utterly lack is a unified, working model.Ultimately, these arguments are philosophy of science arguments and need to be approached from that direction. No working model ... no science.HBD

Well, the typical response is that 7,000 is a lot less than billions and billions.What puzzles me is that most YECs allow for an age of up to 10,000 years. But if the Biblical chronology is infallible and it suggests an age of 6,000, then an actual age of even 7,000 would mean the chronology is in error. But maybe it allows for an error of +/- 67% (which would be the error if the actual age was 10,000 years).HBD

You have got to be kidding!!!When I first got involved in this forum, I used to hate it when people would say something to the effect of "Go read a science book." But now I totally understand why people would say this. Someone like you comes on here and wants to discredit the people who have spent their careers learning and studying an issue while knowing nothing about the subject themselves.It can be terribly frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining the known science behind an issue like climate change, only to have the person you are explaining it to reject it out of hand. So rather than waste time explaining why scientists conclude that humans are contributing significantly to climate change, it's better to just suggest that you read a book on it.Perhaps easier for you is to do a simple Google search on the subject. I would specifically direct your attention to the US EPA site onclimate change. There is a lot of good, basic information on there.However, I don't think you really care whether the science is actually sound or not. Your motivation is to try and call into question legitimate scientific fields and bring them down to the level of creation science and ID so that those pursuits seem more legitimate.What's my justification for accusing you of having such a motivation? Simple. Christians should be one of the last groups to deny human caused climate change. We believe that God has charged us to care for the earth; that should be one of our primary purposes in life. In fact, it was the very first charge that God gave to humans. And yet, it is Christians who are the major group I see denying that climate change is real. Christians should be the ones standing up and arguing that we are not taking care of this earth. We are slowly (actually not that slowly) poisoning it and soon it will be a place we barely recognize.So why do they deny? Simply an attempt to discredit science ... what other motivation could there be? To stop these crazy liberals from enacting measures that reduce pollution, seek alternative energy sources, minimize harm to non-human species? Oh what a miserable world this would be if that happened :sarcasm:HBD

It would seem not. Perhaps the passages that support that idea were meant to be taken figuratively. HBD

What????? Please explain. Science is by its very nature naturalistic, since it deals with natural phenomenon, not supernatural.What you are confusing is methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Science is, by definition, constrained to methodological naturalism. If you "non-rant" OP is about philosophical naturalism, then fine, but you need to be able to distinguish between the two types. You don't seem to be able to, so you accuse all science of being philosophical in nature, which is incorrect.HBD

Your a little behind in your ID theory. Evolution of the bacterial flagella (published 10 years ago in 2003) Game over? I think you meant to say "ID has been falsified rather than evolution."HBD

Climate change HAS a working model. What is it that doesn't work? Do you not understand what a model is? Do you not understand what working means? Is your problem with politics or with science? So this "cash cow" would be more profitable than the oil and coal industry? We are trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels out of misguided greed? Is your problem with politics or with science? Is your problem with political bureaucracies or science? Is this what you mean by "take dominion of it"? or this (runoff from mine tailings) or this or this (a typical coal fired power plant produces 3.5 million tons CO₂ , 14k tons SO₂ , 10k tons NO_x , 500 tons small particulate matter, and 170 lbs. Hg. and there are about 600 coal fired power plants in the U.S.) Need I continue???All these images are related to our usage of fossil fuels and the damage they do to our environment. I am not exactly anti-fossil fuels, but it seems utterly obvious to me that something needs to be done. Without government intervention, we are unlikely to change direction. It is simply too easy to make loads of money in fossil fuel extraction. If there is anything we should learn from history it is that humans are unlikely to change their course of action unless compelled to do so. Do we wait until its too late? Scientists: We are destroying the earth
You: Could you kindly rephrase that in equivocal, inaccurate, vague, self-serving and roundabout terms that we can all understand.So, because scientists haven't presented the issues in a way that you comprehend, the science is junk. Get a clue ... It would appear we do. How totalitarian of them! Here is a list of around 600 other substances that the dictatorship of California has banned, totally unnecessarily since "we don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are." Domineering religious corruption and control.Frankly, your objections are misguided, misdirected, uninformed, and just plain stupid.HBD

I don't know what you mean, I can smell them just fine. They smell like dirty socks ...HBD

Because you really don't care about the actual science behind the issue. If you did you would have done a little research on the subject. Exactly. What are the problems you have with global warming models? Well, it hasn't been "proven", that's just not how it works. There is a strong, practically undeniable correlation between human activity and global warming. Well, this hypothetical person is mistaking weather for climate. Weather is what happens over the short term, like days or weeks. Climate is what happens over longer periods of time, like decades or centuries. That the climate is warming (over decades) is a FACT. That fact can be measured and documented; there is no denying that the climate is warming. The CAUSE of the change is what we need models for and is what is debated. If you really feel there is problems with models that suggest human caused global warming, why don't you present the arguments that support your feelings. Where do you get your information from? Gore's net worth is reportedly $200 million, far less than your supposed $1 billion. Most of that appears to come from the sale of a network he had ownership in and was sold to Al-Jezeera and his options in Apple stock. It doesn't appear that trading carbon credits made him any where near a $billion. How Al Gore's Net Worth Caught Up With Mitt Romney'sOne thing you have to consider in what the "public is willing to pay for" is what costs are being externalized. For instance, if you pay $5 for a tee shirt it is because workers in India are being exploited in the making of that shirt. Were all involved in the production of the tee shirt receiving a fair and equitable compensation, the same tee shirt would cost more like $25. Hows that for what the "public is willing to pay for?" ... exploitation of human labor! How much do you think oil and coal would actually cost if the industry paid for all the environmental damage they do? Especially when coupled with corruption and political power. Our founding fathers were determined to prevent the new government of the US from exerting that type of control. Contrary to what some may imagine, our founding fathers were not trying to establish a Christian nation, nor were they trying to establish a nation free from religion. They wanted to ensure that this nation would not become a country dominated by any particular religion, such as they had left in England. Tradition is over rated. We need to live in the day.HBD

Empirical evidence for an anthropomorphic source of global warming:1. There has been a gradual decrease in the amount of energy that is being radiated back into space, as measured from satellites, while the input from the sun has not changed very much.2. Greenhouse gases (CO₂, CH₄, water vapor, and O₃) can absorb and emit infrared radiation. This ability allows heat to become trapped in the atmosphere and not escape back into space. O₂ and N₂ are not affected by these wavelengths, and so are not considered greenhouse gases. Thus we have a verifiable mechanism by which heat can be trapped in the atmosphere.3. Based on bubbles trapped in ice cores, the atmospheric CO₂ level before the start of the industrial revolution was about 280 ppm. Now the atmospheric level of CO₂ is nearly 400 ppm, a 43% increase in the last 150 years (which corresponds to the time that humans have been burning fossil fuels in significant amounts).4. Each of the greenhouse gases trap unique wavelengths of energy. Most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths absorbed by CO₂. What kind of evidence would it take to "prove" it to you that humans are the primary cause of global warming? These kind of conspiracy theories make me laugh. If there is any group that should be pushing back against climate change it should be the oil and gas industry, who are some of the most powerful and influential special interest groups in Washington. So who are the special interest groups that are able to suppress the oil and gas industry? The Illuminati? Did you even read that article or just the headline. Did you see that Gore's venture capital company invested $75 million in Silver Springs Networks. The Energy Department announced funding for improving the energy grid of which utility companies that Silver Springs has contracts with will receive $560 million. Note that Silver Springs is not getting $560 million nor is Al Gore.Plus, the man believes in this stuff, why should he not invest. Do you begrudge capitalism? Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Gore, but come on, he's wrong for investing in something he believes in and can make a profit from??? Nonsense. I suggest you read Travels of a T-Shirt in a Global Economy to get a better sense of how different stages of the process are exploited in order to bring you a cheap product. Also do some research into what externalization means and figure out what the implications are for the health and future of our society. History does NOT equal tradition. Tradition means we do this because that's the way we have always done it. Sticking to the way we've always done it simply because we have always done it that way is simply foolish. Tradition can go if it no longer serves a purpose.Once again ... your objections are misguided, misdirected, uninformed, and just plain stupid.HBD