Creation science or not?

Yea, I spent a little time this afternoon looking around at those statements. I guess they might think if they don't claim that, then they might go to hell or something.I guess I was a little ignorant, and a little disappointed in those statements.However, I think there is a place for creation science, or science that looks for evidence of a creator, but not the way they are going about it. They should come up with a more accurately descriptive name for it, like, like, like, Theology, or anti-science.

So far, no one has been able to come up with a relible way of looking for evidence of a creator. But, let me point out something for you.
For a scientific viewpoint, for something to be considered a theory, it has to have a way to falsify it. That means, to be able to have a theory of a creator/god, you will have to be able to come up with a way to test for a creator/god. Just think what would happen if one of these tests falsified a creator/god. How would you feel?Do you really want someone to come up with a way to prove that god does not exist? That would be part of the method for testing a model of a creator/god.

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.

Yes, I absolutly do.

Oh, you mean like the world we have today full of "Christians".
Please, don't ever let me catch you using the no-true-sctosman fallacy. Can you show anybody any feeling? But they exist.Do people dream?
Can all people control their dreams?Well I cannot control the Holy Spirit or the times I feel it.Do you know right from wrong in your heart? How do you explain this?
Do not compare what other people think is right or wrong, just what you think is. A wrong result is still a result. Maybe, I said that already. For years scientists thought that stress and other things caused ulcers.So we lived our lives according to that data.What is a peptic ulce? Symptoms, diagnosis and treatmentTurns out that is not the case and there is a simple cure for ulcers.I don't have a problem with this method, but it just goes to show how we live thinking something is one way, when it's really not. This is why all science is good science. Refer to the last example, and I can't help but think we do not really know all that much yet. The truth still has a long way to go. lol. That should be my new name here.
Listen, I agree that most of what drives creation science is not what it should be. But that doesn't make it non-science. It's always good to have another perspective.It's like democrats, and republicans. I think there should always be an equal balance of both. Sort of like checks and balances. Since no-one is ever completely 100% honest, we will just have to deal with it.-my bad ...editted the wrong post!! (Mod)This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 03:00 PM

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

But don't you understand? That whole mumble jumble you just put together IS the fallacy. The same reason you think creation science is the same reason I think Hitler wasn't Christian. But according to the NTS, we are wrong.What bothers me, is how you only want it applied to Christians, not science. Of course they are. Just because you can't measure it, does not make it not physical.If it's not physical, then it's spiritual, or supernatural? Factoid from that staement: science has flaws. Thanks for admiting it. Yes, I agree with you there. I am not to happy about mixing science and religion. I do not think it should be used as a tool to get people to know God. Just like I think TOE should not be used as a tool to get people to not believe in God.

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

Once again I find that someone such as yourself who is trying to be scientifical, or of science, seems to have many opinions.Does science and emotions have a place together or should true scientists be like Spock? (vulcan) I am not redefining science at all, or do I want to.
I agree that those creationist sites are really not going about things the right way. Just like the people who brought you Hiroshima. I appreciate that statement, but no-true-scientists is atheist?Why do what you believe in have anything to do with what science you perform?So the other half of that is no-true-scientists is Christian, or believes in God.I disagree.I think you are confusing bad-science with no-science.

quote:

---

Many people in here claim creation science not to be science at all. I disagree, all science is science.

---

So, what you are saying is that if I attach the word "science" to any qualifier, doing that makes it "science"?If I were, for example, have a religious belief that magical pumpkins were the source of all life and the Universe, and I wanted to promote this view through appearing to have scientific backing even though I did not follow any of the rules of "regular" science in my reasoning or my research, and I called the resulting efforts "Squash Science", does that then mean that "Squash Science" should be considered on equal footing with regular science?

quote:

---

Here are some of my reasons for coming to the conclusion that creation science is indeed science.

​

Once while discussing with schrafinator about "true scientists" and "true science" I brought up the fact the science is not always used for the good. It has been used to create more harm than good. To her, and me, this is not true science, and that is because of the motives behind it.

---

Hold on, when have I ever said that? I believe you are seriously mistaken.In fact, I have said exactly the opposite.I have said that scientists who follow the scientific method properly are doing proper science regardless of their motives.The motivations of a scientist are irrelevant to if his or her work qualifies as scientific.

quote:

---

So creating an atom bomb fits that description.

​

So does creation science.

---

No, that is incorrect.The creation of the atom bomb was, indeed, very well-done science, because it, form your wiki definition, : Creation science does not do the above, especially it avoids the second sentence, in bold. Therefore is is not science.

quote:

---

The physical evidence people feel as the Holy Spirit falls on them is real. Whether it is God or not, is what they want to find out by using the scientific method.

---

Creation Science folks never question "if it is God or not". They decide ahead of time that they know that it is God, and that nature must fit their interpretation of certain parts of a certain non-scientific holy book.Again, this does not in any way fit your definition of science.

quote:

---

Many unexplained events, such as healings, and all the supernatural phenomena claimed in the bible, can be investigated. This makes it science.

---

Sure, they can be investigated, but that doesn't make it science.

quote:

---

No where in that description does it say that you have to not have a goal, or an objective when searching for answers.

---

Science goes where the evidence leads. In this way it is completely open-ended.Creation science, by contrast, begins with a conclusion that MUST be found, regardless of where the evidence points.

quote:

---

In fact it says the opposite. You can believe in the TOE based on evidence, and then try to prove it.

---

This makes no sense. The evidence IS the support (proof).

quote:

---

You can believe in God based on evidence,

---

There is no scientific evidence for God, only subjective faith.

quote:

---

and try to prove it. Just because one theory has more physical evidence than the other, does not make it more science than the other.

---

Creation Science doesn't even meet the basic criterion for being science, as your own Wiki definition shows. They do not make "predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiment".

quote:

---

When the TOE was first thought up, the evidence was limited. That never stopped people from trying to prove it.

---

Did you ever wonder why Origin of species is so incredibly long?It's because of the evidence Darwin lists for his theory of descent with modification and natural selection.You have it backwards, just like the Creation Science people do.The overwhelmingly abundant evidence was pointing towards the hypothesis that Darwin came up with. It was by looking at the evidence and trying to come up with a logical explanation for why it appeared as it did that led to his theory.Theories are simply ways to explain and organize the evidence. They are born out of the observation of the evidence, not dreamed up independently of the evidence like Creation Science does.

quote:

---

What should people who do not believe in God, or people that do not believe in creation science be worried about? If it cannot be proven, or does not exist, then the truth will come out.

---

Not if the suppression and marginalization of science continues. Remember what happened to Russian agriculture when they forbade their scientists form using Evolutionaty principles in their work?

quote:

---

There are all kinds of science,

​

Each one of these sciences has a different motive.

---

But all science that has ever produced anything of use has followed the same method.Creation Science does not produce anything of use, because it does not follow the scientific method.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-13-2006 08:33 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.

Well, that is a refreshing view. Unfortuneately, there are some things that just can not be tested for. There are many devote christians/jews/muslims that would not want a 'test' for god. Personally, I would love to see one. But, I don't see anybody agreeing on what a good test would be.

If a person had no emotions at all, why would they want to be a scientist? Or why would they want to be anything?

quote:

---

An open minded scientifically minded person should really be agnostic, not athiest.

---

That's what I've always thought.

I hope that this doesn't take us too far off topic. If it does, it might be interesting enough to begin a new topic.I can't disagree more with you here, Modulous. Being open minded and scientifically minded doesn't mean that one can never come to a firm conclusion that something doesn't exist. I have evaluated what I consider to be the relevant evidence, weighed the probabilities and come to a firm conclusion that there is no higher power. I believe this to be a rational conclusion. I am open minded in the sense that if new information were to come to light, I might re-evalute my conclusion if the caliber of the evidence is sufficient to cause me to doubt my conclusion. But I do not think that willingness to evaluate new evidence would make me an agnostic. I believe there are no supreme beings. I am an atheist.Let me put it to you this way: are you agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus? the tooth fairy? Zeus, Apollo, Athena? Thor? I venture to guess that you are not, that you are atheist as far as those beings are concerned. Why is being atheist about them any less open minded or scientifically minded than being atheist about all gods?Or, to put it as Steven Roberts put it, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin