Creation science or not?

Even pseudoscience? All science is science is a handy dandy tautology, but it assumes that creation science is science, if it isn't then it isn't science (to drive home another tautology). I wouldn't call that physical evidence. Its a real feeling, but it isn't physical in the sense of a tangible piece of evidence that can be tested by other people to arrive at the same conclusions. One can do science to try and uncover the truth behind supernatural phenomenon, but that isn't what creation scientists are famed for doing. They already 'know' the truth behind the supernatural phenomenon and they try to gather only evidence that is consistent with that and ignore evidence that is inconsistent. If you define that as science then I guess you are right. Agreed. More specifically one can believe the evidence indicate life has changed over a long period of time and then try to fit that into some kind of explanatory framework (which is now called ToE). There is already an explanatory framework in place, creation scientists try and squeeze the evidence to fit it, rather than the other way around. Quite, but what makes creation science not science is that it inevitably comes across data that is massively inconsistent with their model and so they put that down to a miracle. There is no evidence that a miracle occurred, but there must be or our theory is wrong. That's not science. It certainly didn't stop people from trying to gather more evidence to see if it confirms or falsifies the theory. Once again, evidence has already falsified the Creationist's central theory, so they have to ignore that evidence and only focus on the evidence that doesn't contradict their theory...not science. It should. Instead we should be looking to confirm the theories so that we can develop a solid explanatory framework that can be used practically to make predictions etc. What we're about is that the truth has come out^*, but some people are trying to convince others that it hasn't by using pseudoscience and rhetoric. Should we be worried about holocaust denial? What if holocaust deniers tried to get their ideas taught in schools, went to court over, and wanted the 'alternative' taught. They have 'evidence' that Hitler was ignorant of the whole thing and his glorious Reich should be brought back.Sound good? I'd rather they did follow the scientific model. We could resort to quackery and bleed him off, apply hot glass, leeches and make him wear rotting meat to oust the bad humours...but erm...well I doubt we'd learn anything. Better to apply the scientific method and see if we can't eventually figure out what is going wrong. We might be able to help, or at least alleviate the problem. Anything can call itself science if it wants to, its not illegal. In the spirit of a true scientifically minded person, I'll keep my mind open but remain highly skeptical about everything that does not have a decent amount of support. Creation science is definitely included in this.^*tentatively as always. The creation model is about as falsified as it can realistically get, but blind faith is blind faith so the awkward data is on the whole ignored.

No. If you define what Creation Science as science, then obviously it is science. However, that means a heck of a lot of things are science too. Then we wouldn't have a word that reflects what we previously called science, we'd have to invent a new word, and creation science wouldn't be that. If you can show me your feeling so that I can test it, then we'll arrange a meeting and do that very thing. If doing science wrong is still science, then once again a whole lot of other things become science. Now we need a word to describe science that is done wrong and science that is done right. We used to name them pseudoscience and science. And we end up right where we started.That is to say, we have a word for science that is done right: science
And a word for science that is done wrong: pseudoscience. I've read a few creation science papers before now, and that is what I see. Whether or not that is representative of the general way of things is a different matter. Well, they look for confirmation of their theories, yes. I'd hardly call that testing. The occasional one gets thrown out if it is shown to be absolutely false, even by their own standards. Here's one

quote:

---

One way to reconcile these two hourglass readings is to suggest that one of them has a "valve" at its bottleneck controlling the trickling rate, a valve that was adjusted drastically in the past, possibly by direct intervention from God.

---

quote:

---

Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers.

---

Yes, creationism could be correct. However, science is a tool that is ill-equipped to ever answer that. Science can give us practical and useful models though. Creation science is lacking there. I don't know what you mean. Stomach Ulcers can be investigated by science. Examine the data, develop an explanatory framework (excess acid causes pain), use that framework practically (take a mild alkaline product to reduce the acidity). About the nature of the world. Indeed, they can even call themselves Christian McJew Scientist if they wanted.

I'm not using the fallacy. I'm merely being strict with my definitions. I am not saying 'no true scientists', I am saying 'science means doing x, creation science doesn't do x, therefore creation science isn't science'.If you want we can define science to include creation science, but then we'd need to have an identifying term for the particular breed of science I refer to when I say science. Whatever that word is, creation science isn't it.If we were talking about Christians, I could say that Christians accept that the pope is the messenger to God on earth, therefore Baptists aren't Christians. You'd say, we shouldn't broaden the definition of Christian. I'd say fine, we'll call the pope-lovers as 'Catholics', the point would remain, Baptists are not Catholics.I consider science as a particular methodology done in a particular way to ensure that we learn useful things about the natural world. I don't think creation scientists use this methodology, so I don't consider it science. If you want to define science in a way that includes creation science, then that's fine. In order to continue the discussion we'll need a name for the methodology outlined above. Methodological naturalism is a mouthful. I'm not saying they don't exist. I am saying they aren't physical evidence. I don't. I had to be taught right from wrong. That's why infants don't go to prison for crimes. It would be silly to say anything other than that. I get results from ringing my family up, but that isn't science. What method was used to find this simple cure? It looks like an employment of the Germ theory of disease. Naturally scientists can make mistakes, can fall foul of blindness and the like. That's why the scientific method has been developed to be so strict. This strictness helps reduce these flaws. Oh there's plenty left to go, however if you look back and get a sense of the context in which I said all this, I was referring to science versus creation science. Thus, the truth of the nature of the world refers to the age of the earth, and the way which life has diversified upon it and other subjects at the heart of the debate.We're not afraid of creation scientist's work, we're afraid they might sucker people who don't know better. I think I've put my perspective forward here, and I'll sum it up for ease. When I say science I refer to a specific branch of methodology that relies on falsification and repeated tests and so on. If something doesn't abide by the rigid controls that have arisen as part of scientific tradition, then it isn't science. A lot of things out there copy many of the elements of science but conveniently drop some important elements. This fools people into thinking it follows the same methodology of science which gives it false credibility. We call this brand of investigation pseudoscience.I see no reason to merge science and pseudoscience. If you want to consider pseudoscience as a valid investigative method, that's fine. I agree. It has a terrible track record for doing anything practical or useful, but it is a method of investigation. Personally I think it is linguistically useful to keep a lexicographic distinction of terms. No use reducing our vocabulary, that would be double plus ungood!AbE:- Must be careful with my edit button, I accidentally edited your post but I don't think I did any damage. I don't think its like that at all. In science you have this, you have disagreements over individual pieces of data (the common ancestory was this, no it was this, the divergence was 4mya, no it was 6) and that's fine and that's more like checks and balances.Creation science to conventional science is holcaust deniers to historians, Egypt/Alien conspiracists to Egyptologists, astrologers to astronomers.As Behe testified, in order to get ID accepted as science we need to include astrology. The same applies for creation science, only moreso (since it openly announces God rather than tries to deny Him)This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 03:16 PM

No, really. Using a strict definition of the word is not the fallacy if you are clear on your definition. NTS is a goal post moving type fallacy. You'll have to show how I'm doing this, rather than just saying it. After all, I am quite happy to include Creation Science in the definition, but we will need to diferentiate it from what we currently call science because they work differently. You may have noticed that Creationists and IDers in the past have tried to redefine science so that what they do can be called science. Famously, in the Dover court trials, this tactic was shown for the sham it was - Behe had to admit under oath that astrology would be considered science under a definition that included ID.And ID is the best of hope of creationists for being recognized as scientific.So, sure, if you want to you can use science in a way that includes Creation Science, astrology, palmistry and auguring I'm happy to talk. Its not the commonly accepted definition, but there we go. I don't want it 'applied' only to Christians. If somebody says 'no true scientist would shop at WalMart' I'd equally agree that they were using NTS fallacy.A Christian is a person that belongs to a group. Because of the gray area that is 'a definition of a Christian', a definition would need to be agreed upon as to what a Christian actually is before making a statement about what a Christian would and wouldn't do. That's what I said in that other thread.Science is not a group of people, it is a certain methodology, gray areas aren't so much a problem; there is already a very solid definition of science. Creation science neglects to adhere to that definition so it isn't science. I am not saying it is not an investigative method, I'm just saying its not the specific investigative model we call science.Once again, I'm happy if for the purposes of discussion you want to redefine science, but we would still need a seperate word for what was previously called science, which Creation science still would not be.Once again the question is, why on earth do you want to reduce our vocabulary by merging pseudoscience with science? You forgot mental. Its mental evidence. You know, the traditional meaning of factoid is a fact reported in a tabloid that isn't true? Its meaning has changed largely due to internet use.If you read my statement in context though, you'll find that that I wasn't saying science has flaws, but that scientists do.

quote:

---

Naturally scientists can make mistakes, can fall foul of blindness and the like. That's why the scientific method has been developed to be so strict. This strictness helps reduce these flaws.

---

Does the scientific method have flaws? Possibly. I imagine it does, I'd be surprised if humans were able to develop a perfect methodology. Perhaps it is too strict, slowing down progress. Of course, the altertanive could slow us down even more, so perhaps that isn't a flaw. I agree too. People who try to use the ToE that way annoy me. An open minded scientifically minded person should really be agnostic, not athiest.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 10-March-2006 11:45 AM

I didn't realise you were expecting me to show that creation science isn't science by using science. I thought you were looking for opinions. Scientists should have emotions, they should be passionate about their work as everyone should. However, when analysing their data and reporting their findings they should come across as dispassionate and logical. Two different things entirely. The people on the Manhattan project were scientists, doing good science. Their work came under the definition of science quite well. If you don't agree with it's application, you should be criticising the people responsible for those policies. Criticising the science they did is a different ball game than criticising the ethics of them doing the science.Science is a very specific method of investigation. You seem to want to say that any method of investigation is science. Let me repeat, its fine to want to discuss science in this way. You want to have 'good science' and 'bad science'. That's fine, but I don't that's a useful way to distinguish the two. It's much better to distinguish them as science, pseudoscience, and [others]. Methods of investigation that ape science, but miss out the critical elements of science for their own convenience are pseudoscience.I think this makes it clear. We have defined our terms. Naturally, whether or not Creation science is science depends on how we define science. Creationists and IDers have tried to redefine science so as to include their investigative method. I think this is a strong indication that even they admit that what they do now doesn't adhere to the current accepted usage of the term. I never said that no true scientist is an athiest. Plenty of 'true' scientists are athiests. I was expressing my opinion that an open minded scientifically minded person should really be agnostic. An open minded scientist can even believe there is no god, but being open minded they'd always concede that god is a possibility.

I explained my meaning in Message 26:

quote:

---

An open minded scientist can even believe there is no god, but being open minded they'd always concede that god is a possibility.

---

In short, I was using agnostic not to mean 'hasn't made mind up' or merely 'skeptical', I meant it as someone who concedes that the answer to 'Is there a god?' is not 'no' but 'I don't know'.

I'm not sure of the topicness of this, and leaving aside that Santa Claus is not a diety, the simple is answer is that it is impossible to know whether or not Santa Claus exists. I can say with good certainty that any stories about said entity affecting the physical world by leaving 'gifts' is probably erroneous. That it is a global phenomenon is almost a dead cert myth. However the existence of the entity, rather than some of the actions ascribed to him, is unknown.I'm not going to rule out Santa Claus, but I am not going to accept his existence without evidence. I don't believe he exists, but I appreciate that ultimately I only have a lack of evidence with which to form that conclusion.

x2This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 15-March-2006 11:51 AM

Why does that confuse you? I agreed with you, under a definition where a magical Santa Claus obviously and directly affects the physical world, we can rule him out. Other definitions might be trickier. Because Santa Claus might not work that way. He might give gifts in a different manner, perhaps inspiring parents to buy them, maybe his gift is cheer, or opportunity, or hope, or joy. Something less tangible. If you rigidly define Santa Claus as a being that is testable, then we can test it and show his non-existence. However, if Santa Claus is truly magical his powers might extend in such a convenient way as to fox any test that we set up for him.He doesn't have to come to our houses to leave gifts if we do it in his name. That's a fine opinion, but I think its a bizarre leap of logic to compare physically identifiable human beings with the creator of all existence, a potentially all powerful being that can leave no evidence of his existence and rely soley on faith.There is simply no way to test for such an entities existence. We can rule out certain versions of it (like we did with Santa), but we can't rule them all out.In the end, what we have to do is examine how the word agnostic is being used in context. In my sense I was trying to use a term that is contrasted with athiesm in the sense of trying to demonstrate that God doesn't exist via the ToE. In said context agnosticism was clearly meant to mean 'someone who doesn't believe in god, but will admit that there is no real way of knowing either way as opposed to go out of their way to try and demonstrate his non-existence using logic/science theological problems etc'You defined this as tentative athiesm, and if you want to use that term, more power to you. I used a different term, which I have later defined for those who were confused. I really don't see why so many posts are needed to clarify this.

Yep. Indeed, but I wasn't defining him as an idea or as an abstraction. So you are saying that an almighty all powerful being that can do anything it damn well please (including creating and destroying universes, defining laws of physics, bringing the dead to life and so on), HAS to leave evidence behind at the 'scene of the crime'? What kind of crappy God are you talking about here? I understand there are connotations associated with the terms, which is why I clarified my specific meaning when requested. If you replace my original comments with the phrase 'tentative athiest' and you have no problem with what I was saying, there is really no debate...hence why I am wondering why so many posts have been dedicated to this increasingly off topic madness.

---

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

That's not science though. We need something more than that. We don't necessarily need the designer's phone number, but we need some actual evidence of its intervention. Some kind of observable, testable repeatable hypothesis on what mechanism this designer used to do whatever it is it did. Then we'd be able to predict what we might see in the future based on this mechanism and perhaps even help cure diseases etc.At that point it would be science.That said, I'm glad you agree Creation Sciene isn't a science. However, pretending we're not going specify who the Creator is and change it from a Creator into a Designer doesn't really help make it science. The Designer has to either create the life, or 'tweak' the life. Perhaps it should be called either Creationism or Tweakinism?