How then can anything we say be considered as sensible by you folks when we are considered to be ignorant as to what science is?
It's quite simple.. The hypotheses put forward by ”creation’ scientists need to conform to established (and accepted) scientific method. To date they have not.
If they did manage to table a strong hypothesis which then, through rigorous and sound procedure, delivered strong repeatable empirical experimental evidence that supported the hypothesis then serious scientific papers would consider peer-review. If up-held then the scientific community would sit up ad take note. Is that too much to ask ? I think not.
What we see on the other hand is attempts to find events or instances that support a desired conclusion, rhather than doing experiments to try and dis-prove the conclusion. Once even the slightest glimmer of hope is found it’s trumpeted as
proof despite the fact that even a cursory investigation usually brings this hope crashing down leaving the assumption standing naked and unsupported.
”Creation’ science attempts to re-define the rules because they perceive they can’t ”win’ with the rules as they currently stand.
If ”creation’ science wants to be able to include supernatural causes as valid for consideration within the realm of science then they need, within established scientific method, to construct working hypotheses and then run several series of creditable experimentation to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural as a real phenomenon. Once this is done, peer reviewed by major scientific papers then and only then will you find science taking this seriously.
As the JREF has some serious money on offer to ANYONE who can demonstratively prove supernatural phenomenon, in a controlled environment, I would have expected that the prize would have already been claimed, had anyone actually been able to do so.
™ Version 4.2
