why creation "science" isn't science

In various threads on this board, I have attempted to explain to creationists how "scientific" Creationism is actually not scientific at all. Mostly, I get either one of two responses:1) "Yes it is." (unsupported by any explanation), or2) "Well, the ToE isn't science." (which is irrelevant to the matter of if Creation "science" is scientific)In most of these cases, I really think that the people saying this simply do not know how to evaluate a notion on it's scientific merits. IOW, they don't know how to tell the difference between real science and religion dressed up in a lab coat pretending to do science.Listing web sites which explain the difference between science and the non-science of Creation "science" have produced nothing more than bald assertions and denials such as, "That's not true."In this thread, I would like to start a very specific discussion of what science is (including methodology), in what ways Creation "science" isn't science, and in what ways Biology and the ToE are science.Let's start with a basic definition of science. I like this one, but others may add their favorites: http://skepdic.com/science.html"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods
which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in
order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.""Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is."So, here we have one violation of the definition of science by Creation "science": Creationists assume that they have special knowledge ahead of time of what they are going to find.From: http://skepdic.com/creation.html"Creationism can’t be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with it, even apparent contradictions and contraries.
Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory, the steady state theory, and natural selection can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are airtight if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight."Here is another non-scientific quality of Creation "science"; the fact that it is considered non-falsifiable by it's proponents. The basic premise that the Flood happened, for example, is held to be infallibly true, it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.

From Britannica:Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science. And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required. (Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:

​

Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

​

...

---

Hmm, sounds like evolution...

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:

​

Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

---

I think this may be relevant to the unbiased observations part....from http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

quote:

---

CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:
Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------joz:
I think this may be relevant to the unbiased observations part....fromquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.John Paul:
Translation: Members of the CRS scientific community are to conduct their research under a Biblical framework.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.John Paul:
And thus Baraminology is our attempt to discern what the Created Kinds were.3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.John Paul:
OK. This one is obviously not falsifiable (just how would we falsify an Act of God?) and therefore not scientific. However that does not disqualify it from not being indicative of reality. Ya take a little Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, stir in some Baumgardner, Chadwick, Woodmorappe et al. plus the Act of God and there ya have it. 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.John Paul:
It's the Greatest Story ever Told. Beats Darwin's underpinnings hands down.As Fred pointed out, you have to be totally biased with materialistic naturalism in order to use the fossil record to support the ToE. As David L. Kirk points out in Volvox:Molecular-Genetic Origins of multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation (Cambridge University Press1998), "The genesis of the major groups of complex modern organisms remain largely (to pilfer a phrase from Winston Churchill) a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." pg. 10 He finishes that section with "In short, the great antiquity of the major groups of modern multicellular eukaryotes makes it extremely unlikely that at any time in the forseeable future will we be able to develop a detailed understanding of the origins of multicellularity in any one of them that will go beyond the theoretical musings of the past."True, science is about doing research and nobody wants anyone else to just give up looking- who knows, maybe an evolutionary scientist will be the first to publish about the barrier that keeps organisms from evolving beyond their Kind. (as his book states David L. Kirk believes the answer to multi-cellularity lies with the Volvox)That begs the question- If a devote evolutionist, while doing scientific research, found such a barrier, would it be reported?The question isn't who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias to be biased with. (paraphrased from Refuting Evolution by Jon Sarfati)In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe life originated from non-life in a purely matural process. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe that a procaryote can evolve into a eucaryote via endosymbiosis. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe a single-celled organism can evolve into a multi-cellular organism.And that, ladies & gentlemen, is just the start of a long line of beliefs that make up the religion of evolutionism, ie the belief the ToE is indicative of reality.Thank you & Good nightGod Bless us All, Everyone------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-14-2002]

Joz beat me to it in message 5. Regarding the bias part of the definition of science."Science- [b]any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws." http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htmYou don't have to read it all, just note what is number one criteria for establishing baramins."GuidelinesIn accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.3. Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.4. Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.5. Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.7. Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things."JP, even using a definition of your own choice, creation "science" still doesn't pass the test.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Translation: Members of the CRS scientific community are to conduct their research under a Biblical framework

---

Raises the question of what they do with results that don't support a "biblical framework".....Do they just discard it?

quote:

---

And thus Baraminology is our attempt to discern what the Created Kinds were.

---

Um but by presupposing that their were "created kinds' aren't you introducing the supernatural basing all further work on that bias?

quote:

---

OK. This one is obviously not falsifiable (just how would we falsify an Act of God?) and therefore not scientific. However that does not disqualify it from not being indicative of reality. Ya take a little Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, stir in some Baumgardner, Chadwick, Woodmorappe et al. plus the Act of God and there ya have it.

---

Again you introduce a bias towards a supernatural explanation based on and needed due to the supposed veracity of a religious tract to explain an event that a naturalistic view of the evidence concludes within all likelihood did not occur....

quote:

---

True, science is about doing research and nobody wants anyone else to just give up looking- who knows, maybe an evolutionary scientist will be the first to publish about the barrier that keeps organisms from evolving beyond their Kind. (as his book states David L. Kirk believes the answer to multi-cellularity lies with the Volvox)

​

That begs the question- If a devote evolutionist, while doing scientific research, found such a barrier, would it be reported?

---

Depends really if they were an evolutionist (presumably one who believes in evolution against evidence) or a biologist who holds evolution as the best current theory...If the latter the just try and stop them bud....

quote:

---

In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe life originated from non-life in a purely natural process. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe that a procaryote can evolve into a eucaryote via endosymbiosis. In absence of evidence that says it could, people believe a single-celled organism can evolve into a multi-cellular organism.

---

In the absence of evidence that says it did people believe that all life was created suddenly. In the absence of evidence to support the view people believe in Noahs flood. In the presence of data that says they are closely related people place humans and chimps in different kinds.....Whose assumptions are the most grasping?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-14-2002]

Citing the worst definition that is out of context is a rather feeble attempt to argue creationism is science. Either creationism can meet the scienitific method or it can't. And for it to do so there would have to be testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and not be falsified. To date, you, nor any other creationist, can't meet that standard.Cheers,
Larry

Larry:
Citing the worst definition that is out of context is a rather feeble attempt to argue creationism is science.John Paul:
So it's the worst definition that is out of context, how? Just because you say so? That is a rather feeble rebuttal.Larry:
Either creationism can meet the scienitific method or it can't. And for it to do so there would have to be testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, potential falsifications and not be falsified.John Paul:
It has been done. I showed you where you can read about the what you posted. You didn't like it so you say it doesn't exist. Lame, very lame indeed.Larry:
To date, you, nor any other creationist, can't meet that standard.John Paul:
I take it English is your second language. The challenge has been met, you just refuse to see it.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:

​

Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

​

schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science. And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required. (Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)

​

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science.

---

That is exactly what I think. It is also what the scientific community thinks. It is also what several state supreme courts think.If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted.

quote:

---

And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.

---

So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens. The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces."I don't know" does not equal "God".

quote:

---

(Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)

---

So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.As for how life got here, I don't know.Some people are extremely uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that. They prefer to step outside of what we can infer from the evidence to a belief that God or some other non-detectable something made us and/or has a special interest in us.I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

​

John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.

​

---

What other framework would you REASONABLY expect to show scientific findings in? The supernatural, that has never, ever been observed. Or
materialistic naturalism that has been shown to account for everything, where mechanisms are known.It is not that anyone is biased towards materialistic naturalism, they are biased towards REASON. To infer the never observed supernatural, over the only observed materialistic naturalism, is by definition, unreasonable.You seem to infer the supernatural as a result of evidence. Actually, you are inferring the supernatural because of a lack of evidence. Science can't prove this, can't prove that, etc...... God of the gaps.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator thinks that just because Creationists conduct science under a different framework, it is not science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
That is exactly what I think. It is also what the scientific community thinks. It is also what several state supreme courts think.John Paul:
It doesn't matter what you think, what scientific community are you talking about and please present the court statements that would verify your claim.schraf:
If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted.John Paul:
First take a history course. It was the Aristotelians at the universities that opposed Galileo. It was their influence that turned the Church. Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And can Creation be falsified? Yes. Just demonstrate that purely natural processes are all that are required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
So far, no magic has been required to show that evolution happens.John Paul:
Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.schraf:
The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.John Paul:
Ah, but the gaps are real, they are many and they are huge. In order to get around them it takes faith and belief.schraf:
"I don't know" does not equal "God".John Paul:
And it does not equal materialistic naturalism.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Do you really think life is just a result of chemical reactions?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.John Paul:
No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.schraf:
As for how life got here, I don't know.John Paul:
The point is no one does, so why is it bad to infer it is here due to some Designer/ Creator?schraf:
Some people are extremely uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that. They prefer to step outside of what we can infer from the evidence to a belief that God or some other non-detectable something made us and/or has a special interest in us.I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.John Paul:
But that is exactly what evolutionists do...------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

​

John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.

​

---

From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm"Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."Strawman argument.40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of a Creator, the Creator is known only through revelation, we cannot detect the Creator with our five senses, and since science, by definition, concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena, why should the tenets of science be completely changed to allow religious and/or supernatural explanations?What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?First of all, which religious guidelines would we use? All of them?
Some of them? One of them? Just about all of them are based upon holy books or some kind of ancient stories, but some are brand new religions. What about Scientology, for example; should we assume that enrons exist in science?And so on...