Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 365 (2141)
01-15-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
01-15-2002 10:24 AM


schraf:
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?
John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:25 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 01-15-2002 8:10 PM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 365 (2158)
01-15-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
01-15-2002 10:24 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] From:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
John Paul, you avoided anwering my questions and responding to my points. (how unusual) Please do so as they are relevant to the discussion.
"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.[/QUOTE]
Respond substantively, please.
quote:
What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?
Respond substantively, please.
quote:
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...
Respond substantively, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:24 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 12:46 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 365 (2160)
01-15-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
01-15-2002 10:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
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?
John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.

You did not answer the question. Remember, we are discussing what science is, and if creationism is science.
Since science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena, by definition, what compelling reason do we have to change the rules of science to allow supernatural explanations for naturalistic phenomena?
Answer substantively, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:39 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 12:52 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 365 (2168)
01-15-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
01-15-2002 10:19 AM


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.
quote:
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.
I was in error when I said that the court descisions were at the state level. Several are, but several were also US supreme court descisions.
Arkansas:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach, Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because ``creation-science'' as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is ``accepted by the scientific community'' and is ``what scientists do.'' The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics. First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which asserts a sudden creation ``from nothing.'' Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).
If the unifying idea of supernatural creation by God is removed from Section 4, the remaining parts of the section explain nothing and are meaningless assertions.
Section 4(a)(2), relating to the ``insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism,'' is an incomplete negative generalization directed at the theory of evolution.
Section 4(a)(3) which describes ``changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals'' fails to conform to the essential characteristics of science for several reasons. First, there is no scientific definition of ``kinds'' and none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific authority which recognized the term or knew how many ``kinds'' existed. One defense witness suggested there may may be 100 to 10,000 different ``kinds.'' Another believes there were ``about 10,000, give or take a few thousand.'' Second, the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species. There is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.
The statement in 4(a)(4) of ``separate ancestry of man and apes'' is a bald assertion. It explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory (26).
Section 4(a)(5) refers to ``explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.'' This assertion completely fails as science. The Act is referring to the Noachian flood described in the Book of Genesis (27). The creationist writers concede that any kind of Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention. A worldwide flood as an explanation of the world's geology is not the product of natural law, nor can its occurrence be explained by natural law.
Section 4(a)(6) equally fails to meet the standards of science. ``Relatively recent inception'' has no scientific meaning. It can only be given in reference to creationist writings which place the age at between 6,000 and 20,000 years because of the genealogy of the Old Testament. See, e.g., Px 78, Gish (6,000 to 10,000); Px 87, Segraves(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of ``what scientists think'' and ``what scientists do.'' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
The creationists have difficulty maintaining among their ranks consistency in the claim that creationism is science. The author of Act 590, Ellwanger, said that neither evolution or creationism was science. He thinks that both are religious. Duane Gish recently responded to an article in Discover critical of creationism by stating:
Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious). (Gish, letter to editor of Discover, July, 1981, App. 30 to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief)
The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.
The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it. The method is best explained in the language of Morris in his book (Px 31) Studies in The Bible and Science at page 114:... it is ... quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there ... Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!
The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is ``historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs'' (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
IV(D)
In efforts to establish ``evidence'' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach contained in Section 4, i.e., all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science. For example, the defendants established that the mathematical probability of a chance chemical combination resulting in life from non-life is as remote that such an occurrence is almost beyond imagination. Those mathematical facts, the defendants argue, are scientific evidences that life was the product of a creator. While the statistical figures may be impressive evidence against the theory of chance chemical combinations as an explanation of origins, it requires a leap of faith to interpret those figures so as to support a complex doctrine which includes a sudden creation from nothing, a worldwide flood, separate ancestry of man and apes, and a young earth."
Louisiana:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html#Held
"The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment."
As for the "scientific community" I refer to, I present a friend of the court brief for the Louisiana case entitled, "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES"
Read it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
The plaintiffs in the in the Arkansas case were "...the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas."
Lots of religious folks oppose the teaching of Creation "science" in schools, you see, because it translates to state-sponsored religion.
"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."
quote:
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.
It doesn't matter where the influence within the Church came from. The Church was the one doing the imprisoning because it had the "divine right" to do so, and the reason it persecuted the scientist was because he went against Church doctrine.
quote:
Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.
The creation model violates many tenets of science, the specifics of which I have been pointing out, such as it's declaration of knowledge of nature a priori.
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.
quote:
John Paul:Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.
Sure there is. Creationists declare that certain things happen by supernatural means. That's magic. Meaning, that's not science.
Also, falsification of Creation "science" isn't a demonstration that purely natural processes are all that are required. A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.
schraf: The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.
quote:
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.
You didn't comment on the statement I made. I said, "The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces." It doesn't matter how big you think the gaps are, they still aren't positive evidence. It doesn't matter if "it takes faith and belief to get around them". Gaps in our knowledge do NOTHING to forward Creation "science". How many times are you going to sidestep this fact?
Also, you point to Behe's gaps frequently, such as blood clotting, yet you refulse to discuss the specifics of the genetic evidence which refutes Behe's notion that blood clotting is "impossible" by natural means. In this vein, what happens if ALL of Behe's examples of IC are eventually understood?
If the entirety of the ToE were to be falsified tomorrow, it would not mean that Creationism is correct. You are STILL under the strange, inaccurate (yet common among Creationists) impression that there is a dualism here. There isn't.
schraf: "I don't know" does not equal "God".
quote:
John Paul: And it does not equal materialistic naturalism.
Non responsive.
"I don't know" means just that. To a scientist, "I don't know" leads to research to try to figure it out. To Creationists and ID proponents, "I don't know" leads to "Godidit", not further research.
quote:
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.
quote:
John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.
All of the leading Creation Science organizations certainly do.
schraf:As for how life got here, I don't know.
quote:
John Paul:The point is no one does, so why is it bad to infer it is here due to some Designer/ Creator?
It isn't bad to do this as long as you aren't wanting to call it science.
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.
quote:
John Paul: But that is exactly what evolutionists do...
You seem to think that if you repeat assertions often enough that you somehow make them true.
There is no supernatural element to the tenets of science. Show me that there is or stop making the claim.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:19 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:13 PM nator has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 365 (2175)
01-15-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
01-15-2002 11:21 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] From:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm
John Paul, you avoided anwering my questions and responding to my points. (how unusual) Please do so as they are relevant to the discussion.
"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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
To what?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in science?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
Again, respond to what? You say nothing about the restrictions and guidelines that materialistic naturalism places on the quest for knowledge. Why is that?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Respond substantively, please.
John Paul:
Use the one that best fits the evidence.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 3:25 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 365 (2176)
01-15-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
01-15-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
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?
John Paul:
OTOH, since we have no POSITIVE evidence of purely natural causes for the origins of life, there is no way to detect the origins of life why assume it occurred via purely natural processes? As far as I can tell the only 'supernatural' part to the Creation model of biological evolution IS the origins.
After that nature took over and that is where Creation science kicks in. I know that may be difficult for you to comprehend but that is your problem, not mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
You did not answer the question. Remember, we are discussing what science is, and if creationism is science.
John Paul:
First, as I have tried to explain, Creationism isn't the issue. The issue is the Creation model of biological evolution or the Creation model of geology. Please try to stay focused.
schraf:
Since science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena, by definition, what compelling reason do we have to change the rules of science to allow supernatural explanations for naturalistic phenomena?
Answer substantively, please.
John Paul:
There are no naturalistic explanations for the origins of life. Seeing that the biggest difference between the Creation model of biological evolution and today's ToE is the starting point of evolution and that no supernatural explanations are required after that, I don't understand your continued problem.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 11:25 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by lbhandli, posted 01-15-2002 8:12 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 365 (2178)
01-15-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
01-15-2002 12:15 PM


"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."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
It doesn't matter where the influence within the Church came from.
John Paul:
Yes, it matters. The Church would not have done a thing without the pressure from the Aristotelians.
schraf:
The Church was the one doing the imprisoning because it had the "divine right" to do so, and the reason it persecuted the scientist was because he went against Church doctrine.
John Paul:
Go take a history lesson and get back to me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second it is not Creationism- it IS the Creation model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
The creation model violates many tenets of science, the specifics of which I have been pointing out, such as it's declaration of knowledge of nature a priori.
John Paul:
In reality the Creation model of biological evolution violates NO tenets of science. Remember, evolution isn't concerned with origins. The problem with the court decisions is that at the time they weren't aware of what the Creation model of biological evolution was.
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:
True. Just many 'just-so' stories.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:Guess what? There isn't any magic in the Creation model either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Sure there is. Creationists declare that certain things happen by supernatural means. That's magic. Meaning, that's not science.
John Paul:
So supernatural means magic? LOL! Go buy a vowel.
schraf:
Also, falsification of Creation "science" isn't a demonstration that purely natural processes are all that are required.
John Paul:
Sure, that is all that is required.
schraf:
A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.
John Paul:
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say it is unfalsifiable and then it has been falsified. And anyway, that would falsify the Creation model of geology.
schraf: The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
You didn't comment on the statement I made. I said, "The gaps in our knowledge do not constitute positive evidence for any supernatural forces." It doesn't matter how big you think the gaps are, they still aren't positive evidence. It doesn't matter if "it takes faith and belief to get around them". Gaps in our knowledge do NOTHING to forward Creation "science". How many times are you going to sidestep this fact?
John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is today's ToE is full of gaps and should not be taught in public schools because those gaps are filled in with faith & beliefs. And yes I understand the fact that the ToE being full of gaps is not positive evidence for the Creation model. I never said or implied that it did.
schraf:
Also, you point to Behe's gaps frequently, such as blood clotting, yet you refulse to discuss the specifics of the genetic evidence which refutes Behe's notion that blood clotting is "impossible" by natural means. In this vein, what happens if ALL of Behe's examples of IC are eventually understood?
John Paul:
I have been over this. Theories change when new evidence is brought to the front.
schraf:
If the entirety of the ToE were to be falsified tomorrow, it would not mean that Creationism is correct. You are STILL under the strange, inaccurate (yet common among Creationists) impression that there is a dualism here. There isn't.
John Paul:
Nope, never said, never thought it and never implied it. You are the one who is confused.
schraf:So far, I see no reason to think that God or another non-natural force was absolutely necessary for evolutionary processes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
All of the leading Creation Science organizations certainly do.
John Paul:
Bull scorch! Please provide the URL where I can read this. I will repeat, ONLY life's origins are attributed to God in the Creation model of biological evolution.
schraf:
I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul: But that is exactly what evolutionists do...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to think that if you repeat assertions often enough that you somehow make them true.
There is no supernatural element to the tenets of science. Show me that there is or stop making the claim.
John Paul:
You are confusing the ToE with science, stop that. Also my response was to this:
"schraf:
I respect that need or desire, but these people cross the line when they say that their religious beliefs are science."
There is nothing about the supernatural in the statement I was responding to. So why did you feel it was necessary to throw it in to your response to my response?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 12:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 01-15-2002 2:18 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 3:45 PM John Paul has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 365 (2191)
01-15-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
01-15-2002 1:13 PM


quote:
"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.
Since we're talking history here, I think is fairly clear that church history is replete with interference in secular affairs. I really don't think that you want to go there, JP.
quote:
schraf:
A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.
John Paul:
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say it is unfalsifiable and then it has been falsified. And anyway, that would falsify the Creation model of geology.
True it can be falsified scientifically, that's why creationism is an abandoned theory. However, the fallback position is always that the bible says this or that, or that god wanted it that way. That part of the creationist argument cannot be falsified.
quote:
John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is today's ToE is full of gaps and should not be taught in public schools because those gaps are filled in with faith & beliefs. ...
The problem you have is that the ToE explains what we see in the natural world, while you have no theory that can do the same. And if you are worried about gaps in knowledge we'd better cancel history classes as well.
quote:
John Paul:
I have been over this. Theories change when new evidence is brought to the front.
Wait! I thought that was bad! What kind of theory do you have that it keeps changing all the time?
quote:
John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.
Ah, good. Does this mean you are about to tell us who the designer was/is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:13 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Jimlad
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 365 (2199)
01-15-2002 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by John Paul
01-15-2002 9:42 AM


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.

C'mon JP, you're making a god out of naturalism... naturalism tries to find the underlying forces involved in driving processes, it doesn't care what it finds. You're starting with Genesis, that's why you're biased and naturalism isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 9:42 AM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 365 (2202)
01-15-2002 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John Paul
01-15-2002 12:46 PM


[QUOTE] JP: "Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to
mechanical laws."
Allison: "Strawman argument.
40% of US scientists believe in God, and so are, by definition, not materialistic naturalists.
schraf:Respond substantively, please."
quote:
John Paul:To what?
Stalling, eh?
You like to throw around the term "materialistic naturalism" as a bias that science has, and this is why we cannot trust that scientific results and "conclusions" are a good approximation of the reality of naturalistic phenomena.
I just pointed out to you that 40% of scientists believe in God, and so do not subscribe to materialistic naturalism. (The other 60% may or may not)
Therefore, I refuted your sweeping indictment that science is biased.
The usual thing to do during a debate, in this case, is to either attempt a rebuttal or concede the point.
That is, if one is interested in debating in a straightforward way.
"Allison: What benefit to inquiry of the natural world would be gained if religious restrictions and guidelines were included in
science?"
quote:
John Paul:Again, respond to what? You say nothing about the restrictions and guidelines that materialistic naturalism places
on the quest for knowledge. Why is that?
Huh? Why would I say anything about materialistic naturalism when we are talking about science?
Science, in fact, avoids altogether the question of if there is anything beyond nature.
YOU are the one implying that including religious ideas into science would somehow make it better, so it is up to you to explain how scientific inquiry would benefit.
Allison; "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..."
Correction: I should have written "en-grams", not "enrons", above.
quote:
John Paul:Use the one that best fits the evidence.
The religious notion that best fits the evidence is called "LastThursdayism".
This is the idea that God created the entire universe, including all of our memories of the past, last Thursday.
Here is a link to a slightly "different" denomination of this church which explains more:
http://home.earthlink.net/~aexia/colt/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 12:46 PM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 365 (2204)
01-15-2002 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
01-15-2002 1:13 PM


quote:
In reality the Creation model of biological evolution violates NO tenets of science. Remember, evolution isn't concerned with origins.
First, since I have not ever seen the "Creation model of biological evolution" I'm not sure what we are talking about. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide it?
So, are you trying to tell me that the Creation model of biological evolution does NOT refer to the Bible, Genesis, or God in any way?
How do you reconcile this claim with what has been cut and pasted here from the ICR and CRS?? They start off requiring belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and this specifically violates the scientific tenet of not knowing nature a priori.
quote:
The problem with the court decisions is that at the time they weren't aware of what the Creation model of biological evolution was.
Bullshit.
The defendants were CREATIONISTS!! They called creationists to the stand.
They have had several "days in court" to prove their case that Creationism is science and they were soundly defeated.
Let's not forget Kansas, either.
Nobody is fooled, John Paul.
Creationism is religion, and it isn't science.
Furthermore, do you now understand that the US supreme court has ruled that Creation "science" is religion and isn't science?
Also, do you now understand what I mean when I say "the community of scientists" since I linked you to the friend of the court brief by 72 Nobel Laureates, etc.?
Since you tend to ignore arguments that you lose or can't answer instead of conceding them, I want to be clear that you actually recognize that I provided what you asked for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 1:13 PM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 365 (2219)
01-15-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Paul
01-15-2002 6:24 AM


quote:
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.
No, it is common sense and clear to anyone who has ever taken a college entrance exam. When discussing modern science the scientific method is clearly the determinant of what science is. If you wish to discuss the Arts and Sciences in colleges your definition would be appropriate. Knowledge of the English language is all that is required to know you are misusing that language. If that isn't good enough for you, I would suggest you look at how the philosophy of science classes look at the issue:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
You offer no rebuttal to the understanding of the word in context. Unless you can, your argument is silly and assanine. Words' meanings are in relation to their context. Everything in this discussion has centered on modern science.
quote:
\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.
No, you haven't provided a scientific theory yet. You have claimed it exists, but you cannot provide a testable hypothesis, confirming evidence, or a potential falsification for this supposed theory. Either do so, or stop trying to claim you have. If you had it woudl be simple to cite the post. You haven't done that, so you have some work to do.
quote:
John Paul:
I take it English is your second language. The challenge has been met, you just refuse to see it.
Actually, I have questions about your English, with the rather odd definitions of science you attempt to use. Now, where is the theory. Cite where it has been provided in an operationalized manner.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 6:24 AM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 365 (2220)
01-15-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
01-15-2002 10:39 AM


You are ignoring evidence for evolution back to 3 billion years ago and an Earth of the age around 4.5 billion years. This is positive evidence. What you seem to be arguing is that all of that evidence doesn't matter since we don't know everything before it. That isn't evidence for anything you are proposing, it is an argument based the lack of specific evidence for another theory. You could argue that we don't have enough evidence to infer abiogenesis, but this is not evidence against abiogenesis, it is an argument that we don't have enough evidence. This would say nothing about an old Earth or evolution however.
And arguing against these theories doesn't support you theory. So why don't you operationalize your theory with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:39 AM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 365 (2221)
01-15-2002 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John Paul
01-15-2002 12:52 PM


So operationalize either of these models. What is the hold up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 12:52 PM John Paul has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 365 (2334)
01-17-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-13-2002 9:22 AM


"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."
--Ok lets see then.
"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." "
--This is not about listing various web sites opinons on what they think to be true, infallable, fact, and whatnot. We are here to discuss our own views not start jumping in with other peoples views and saying, thus, you have to be dumb to think creation science is science. Anyone who is ready to say 'that's not true' must certainly be equipt or know where to find the equiptment and understanding to uphold what you have claimed or withdraw it before it is subject to critisism.
"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."
--And I will continue to press why 'creation 'science'' is science, and theology and faith are in a realm beyond science, and thus creation science.
"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."
--Exactly
"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."
--Sounded good untill it accused scientific creationists as being uncooperative with this definition, we in no way claim that we are infallably right and that we cannot be falsified because we believe that the Bible is infallable, thus unfalsifiable. Which is exactly the flaw, scientific creationism has nothing to do with supernatural entities, though on the other hand the origin of the universe does.
"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."
--We do not assume that we have prior special infallable knowledge, we simply say hey look at this book, and look at science, science is evidence that this book is right. This is your flaw in what your view is on 'scientific creationism'.
"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."
--Again this is another misunderstanding of creation science. Your getting theology and faith mixed in with it. I in no way say that the Flood is infallibly true, I say that I believe it happend and here is my evidence to back it up, as we discuss in the Flood Discussion thread.
p.s. Sorry I've been gone for about 4 days, things are really heating up in these forums, and I'm liking it
happy debating.
------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-17-2002 3:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-17-2002 5:13 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 34 by nator, posted 01-17-2002 9:33 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024