What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

And the evidence supports the former and not the latter.Please read my three-line summary of the scientific method until you understand it.

DA, we're not here to assess the quality of any given science project. For the umteenth time, we're here to determine what is and is not science. Is this ICR IDist creationist science research project science or not?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Let's see ... he's wilfully ignoring facts IN HIS POSSESSION in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.You tell me --- is that science, or is that dressing up and playing at scientists?

try this on for size--it's called the scientific method.Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish resultsthis list here, from wiki is a liitle extensive, but it has all the core parts. Notice where the hypothesis is? On this list it's third. On the usual five-step list it's second. And guess what comes before you form the hypothesis? Observations and questions.Here's how the full thing works.
Hey, this is interesting (finds odd fact--no edge of world) observationWhy is there no edge to the earth? from questionMaybe there is no edge because the earth is a sphere? hypothesisHow can I test this hypothesis? I know, let's sail around it. If I make it all the way around the world without falling off, the earth is at least edgeless. experiment(let's just say he's successfull)okay, so I've got this data here, and it appears to confirm my hypothesis. analyze and collect datanow I'll just send it to my collegues so they can repeat and verify.And yeah, I kinda screwed up with the (analyze, collect, and interpret part. maybe because I worded my hypothesis wrong)anywho, the whole point--you're wrong. THe scientific method is how you do science, and it never, never, never starts with the hypothesis. It always starts with observations.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

It should be obvious that it is not science. I am not sure how you can defend the possibility that it is science. At its best, and this would be granting too much, it would be fraudulent science for which any scientist would get hit pretty hard.It is possible for a scientist to undermine dating techniques by finding gross and consistent anomolies. Though any initial findings should be followed up with more work to uncover what is happening (and not just let it rest as a justification for another theory), that would in fact be science. That is clearly not what happened here.Don't you have any comment on the clear criticisms made at your source link?As far as your other post regarding discussion of hypothesis from a physics text. Note that it says any experiment begins with an hypothesis. That would be correct. The hypothesis forms a backbone of a subsequent experiment.However, straggler has already explained how a hypothesis is formed. There is work that comes before the hypothesis. Hypothesis is not synonymous with a frivolous or disconnected (arbitrarily held) assumption.While one could technically get away with starting a whole field of research from scratch, and so form new hypotheses which are different than others in the field, it is not valid to ignore all present data which would impact the area one is investigating. Neither would it be valid to pick any book off a shelf and say "let's go with what it says in here", and attempt to fit evidence to the hypothesis.Einstein might be a good example of both sides of this issue. While overturning longheld assumptions about physics (relativity), he did not just pick a novel assumption from the air. He did look at previous work and built from that, even if the solutions to problems faced was novel. On the flipside, there was a subject where he started with an arbitrary assumption (cosmic expansion), and it blew up in his face.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Are you really suggesting that the laws of physics relating to force, pressure, viscosity and motion as well as those governing chemical interaction at the atomic level have changed since your proposed great flood? Because it is on the basis of those that the original hypothesese were made. If you regard that as uniformitarianism then I suppose so but I would be very interested to hear how and on what basis you think these fundamental concepts were different in any way previously to your flood? No.
1) The hypothesis is not based on any physical evidence or any logically concluded theoretical basis.
2) The hypothesis itself is either so broad (there was a huge flood) or negative regards an alternate theory rather than positive concerning it's own conclusions (a particular dating technique is wrong) that it is virtually useless as a means of investigation.
3) The evidence used to "verify" the hypothesis is selective in the sense that it only puts forward that which fits (e.g. you have mentioned sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon but the U turn shape of the canyon itself as well as tributaries of equal depth at right angles to the main canyon are difficult to explain by rapid flow dynamics and are therefore ignored in your assertions)
4) No verifiable predictions regards future data have been made based on the logical conclusions of the hypothesis. It has only been used to explain already known phenomenon. It is very easy to make a theory fit known facts but extremely difficult for new facts to verify hypotheses made previously. This is why prediction rather than mere explanation is held in such hugh esteem as a key component of the scientific method.
5) There are no clear or stated means by which the hypothesis can be refuted.
6) There is no seperate and independant body of knowledge that can corroborate or substantiate the overriding assumption of your hypothesis.The methodology you are advocating falls down at every step of any hypothesis based method that could be called scientific.You have said previously that the hypothesis is the beginning of any scientific investigation. For the reasons explained in my last post I do not think that is true. However even in your own terms "creationist science" leaves a lot to be desired. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Buz,The answer to your question was contained in the passage you quoted: This phenomenon under study is known through evidence from prior observations and/or experiments. Science begins with evidence, not hypothesis. Without evidence of a phenomenon there is nothing to hypothesize about.Creationism isn't science because it does not begin with evidence but with revelation, in this case revelation from the Bible that the world is young and modern geology is a result of a great flood several thousand years ago.The Steve Austin work you found discussed at TalkOrigins is an example of misapplying scientific analysis and misinterpreting scientific results. Creationists who don't understand sedimentology or isochron dating will be easily convinced that Austin is correct and that radiometric dating is unreliable, or at worst that this is an example of scientific disagreement. But to those who do understand these things it is more than clear that Steve Austin is either incompetent or purposefully misconducting scientific analysis of layer ages. The explanations for why this is so have already been made in the earlier replies to you, but if they aren't sufficiently clear or detailed we can provide more elaboration.At its core the reason Steven Austin is wrong is still lack of connection to real evidence, but the reason for it is less obvious. He has all the evidence before him, he just screws up the analysis. Ignoring the proper methodologies for geologic and radiometric analysis and interpretation will produce produce similar results to ignoring evidence.Next time I find a free moment I'll visit the ICR website myself and find a representative paper in which the lack of connection to scientific evidence is more apparent.--Percy

Then why is this place called EvC (Evolution vs Creationism)? There remains no debate here and no creo science participation as per your Forum Guidelines. I said it before and I say it again. Ban all creationists from all science forums and post it up front on your home page that creos are welcome here but stay out of science. CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE NOT SCIENCE. THEY ARE RELIGIOUS ONLY!.I say close this thread now, save us all a lot of work and time and save your site all this bandwith for evo vs evo science debate and discussion. I see this as a waste of my time. Edited by Buzsaw, : Provide reason for edit Add a word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Actually, that's a very rational response. Scientific hypotheses are built upon evidence, not revelation. Since creationism's revelatory base means it is not and cannot be science, there really can be nothing resembling a legitimate debate. At heart, much creation/evolution debate is simply one side trying to make clear to the other what science really is.--Percy

You might as well close this thread Percy. I'm done with wasting my time on science here.

Sorry, you are mistaken. There is a debate. And the reason that there is a debate, is that creationists repeatedly claim that they are doing science, and that their science warrants a place in the school science curriculum.If you think the debate is a sham, and that it should be ended, then there is no point in appealing to Percy. You must appeal to the creationists. This is their debate. If the creationists were to keep their creationism within their churches and their sunday schools, and take it out of the public arena, then there would no longer be any need for a debate and sites like this would have to find some other reason for their existence.

OK. We note that you cannot support your claim that creationists do genuine science and don't feel it even worth the effort of making a serious attempt.I have to ask than, what was the point of starting the thread ? Did you seriously expect your opponents to simply change their minds on your say-so ?

like its been said there is a debate, its a debate about creationism being science, thats the whole point. creationists think they do science and ignore people asking them to show them science that isn't twisted and wrong
if there was a creationist who knew about evolution and science they could debate in the science forums without problems, no creationist has shown this. why? because we don't accept your claims? you expect that from people that keep tell you that scientists are more stubborn when it comes to scientists making claims?
i guess you agree then that creationism is a religious argument and should stay out of schools? along with ID?

Why is it a waste of time for you? That is an honest question.You have asked questions and set out an example or two. In return you have been given generally honest as well as some excellently written responses and analyses.That they rebut your position well may make it hard for you, but should not make your time arguing against them wasted.And perhaps more importantly, if they are that challenging, maybe you are wrong and need to change your mind about some things? That is hardly wasted time.Contrary to your earlier statement, I don't believe creationists need to be kept out of science forums. It just means that creationists should understand the limits of what they are attempting to argue or accomplish within science. That they should not attempt to make statements about science from their own perspective, but learn and speak about it from a more accurate one.It may be that evolution and creationism are not equal in the realm of science and must instead be treated within purely metaphysical/broad epistemelogical or religious debate.There is nothing wrong, or wasted, in discovering that to be true. It might refine debate and allow creationists to accept science for what it is and make more accurate commentary within it, by not bringing in foreign elements.As a final note, I think it would be very sad if you felt like you were given no fair platform on this issue, and that your arguments were wholly sound. Miller essentially undercut your claims regarding his work, and the ICR example you gave was patently fraudulent. This should have been extremely valuable learning experience for you. And that is not meant meanly.I would actually encourage you to continue bringing up what you believe is legitimate science within that field, and listen to limits or problems which might be within them.Unless you believe you must be right and everyone else wrong, you will be gaining from the experience. And if you find something solid, then so will others.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think the fact that the debate has got to this point indirectly sums up why the creationist position cannot be considered science.Buz has put forward examples of creationist research.
The rest of us have pointed out how these examples fail to meet the requirements of scientific research by explaining (in some detail) the methods and foundations of scientific thinking and endevour as we believe them to be.
Buz has then become frustrated because we are unfairly analysing and evaluating his examples on these very restrictive terms. The terms that we have defined to support our argument.If this were the whole story I would have a lot of symapthy for Buz's position of frustrated indignance.However this fails to appreciate that the definitions and terms we have put forward to support our arguments against creationist research being considered science have not been defined in the context of this debate. Nor have they been arbitarily defined in order to exclude creationists, astrologists, psychics or anyone else.The methodology of science is what makes science what it is.The fact is that ALL the conclusions and theories of ALL mainstream science have been (or are being) evaluated on exactly these terms using exactly these methods.The very fact that creationists consider it unrealistic and unfair to evaluate their claims on these terms is the best example of why creationist research cannot be be considered science in the first place.There seems little point in further analysing specific examples of creationist research while the two sides of the debate are effectively talking different languages. Whilst I agree with Holmes that there is much to learn from rebuttal and that such activity is far from a waste of time, I would also agree with Buz, even if only to concur that this thread has probably run it's course.