The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

If the research is identical, why can't anyone come up with an example published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? Do you have any examples? I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the either-or stance, since evolution does not deal with origins, and it is very easy to reconcile creation and evolution both occurring... As a matter of scientific method, falsifying evolution would not confirm creation.To me, part of the reason "creation science" is not science is because the bias and conclusion is included in the title "creation science". A true scientist would not accept the title "creation scientist", though someone practicing pseudoscience might. You're demonstrating that creation science is not real science with these statements. Real science does not accept a conclusion (creation) and then work towards it by trying to tear down a theory (evolution) unrelated to that conclusion.I've never heard of a geneticist (or any other genuine scientist) trying to "prove" evolution by disproving creationism.

Your conclusion would be unscientific, since you did not formulate and test a hypothesis to come up with confirming evidence before coming to your conclusion. Another possibility would be a more observational method, but you would need many, many more observations than your single one.If your example demonstrates how you think science works, no wonder you think creation science might be valid.

Firstly, we need to clear up a common misconception - the theory of evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Creationism is a view on origins, evolution is a theory about how life proceeds after origins. Therefore, they cannot be rival theories.Perhaps the timescale involved contradicts your literal reading of the Bible, but that is a different matter - you should be arguing in one of the Dates & Dating forum.I'd be interested to hear your "evidence" against evolution, that confirms your faith in creationism. Exactly, creation scientists are biased, so they do not practice true scientific method. Editors are biased against individual creation scientists because they don't follow the scientific method.Thus there is an "intrinsic difference" - if there was no difference, creation science would be published if valid. I'm not sure of this statement - what evidence have you seen, and what have you not started looking for? It seems you are admitting a one-sided viewpoint... though I'm not sure what it is. If you haven't seen the evidence on both sides, how can you make such a strong stance?Again, what evidence? I don't want to lead this discussion off-topic, but perhaps if you have strong evidence it could lead to productive discussion in another thread.

Byers, you are quite the frustrating fellow. You didn't get away with this argument in the fossil sorting thread, so now you move it here?Just because you have the preconceived notion that scientists "prove" theories based on the lay press, does not mean that it is part of the scientific method. No real scientist will ever state that they have "proven" evolution.You can write something as many times as you want, in all caps if you like, but that will not make it true.At the base of your arguments, you do not understand what science is or how it works, so you should definitely not be labeling things as science and non-science. The problem you seem to have is with those presenting science to the public, not those actually doing the science. I once was interviewed regarding some of my scientific findings - I was extremely careful with my words, but when the press release came out, my conclusions had gotten distorted anyway. There is currently a movement to improve communication from science to reporter to public - unfortunately it seems to be developing rather slowly. Scientists studying evolution use the scientific method, proposing hypotheses or theories based on observation, and then test those hypotheses, confirming or falsifying them with objective evidence.I would be interested in what objective evidence you have that falsifies the theory of evolution.Part of the key to being 'real' science is that the conclusions do not come before the evidence. All of creation science I have heard of operates with a foregone conclusion, and is therefore not science (this foregone conclusion is evidenced in the above messages regarding oaths required to practice (pseudo)science at a creation science organization.The other key issue is that most creation scientists do not try to provide evidence for creation, rather they try to falsify evolution. Science does not confirm one theory by falsifying another, unrelated theory.

Absolutely, though I'm not sure of how the scientific method is currently taught K-12, it must vary considerably from district to district. Another part of the problem is simply that the "method" is less interesting than the demonstration experiment or the result, and therefore less likely to be remembered. Potentially if the method was stressed in relation to each experiment/concept students could better evaluate the status of the theory. Unfortunately most just want to know if they need-to-know-it-for-the-exam...I'm sure it's for similar reasons that we don't routinely see documentary science shows, such as Nova or Scientific American Frontiers, where the scientific method is stressed in a way that an average non-scientist would appreciate. It isn't surprising, the scientific method isn't as sexy as the workings of the brain, curing cancer, etc...To get the basic point across, either the scientists, interviewers, or editors tend to paint the basic point in black-and-white. From my personal experience I know that some scientists do this more than others - some will have a press release claiming they've essentially discovered a cure for cancer/HIV/etc., while others won't touch the idea of a cure with a ten-foot-pole no matter how promising their results.Judith Folkman, the guy who came up with the idea of using angiogenesis inhibitors as cancer therapy, suffered from backlash related to a communication problem. He managed to 'cure' cancer in a specific mouse model of cancer, and Time magazine reported that he had come up with 'the' cure for cancer. When the inhibitors didn't live up to expectations in human cancer, the finger was pointed at Folkman for misleading the public, when all he ever claimed was that he cured a few mice.Translation is definitely a problem, one that is on-topic here because those who claim creation science is true science seem to be comparing the creation science evidence to the lay interpretations of the conclusions arising from true scientific method.

You raise some excellent points - I agree that students should be involved in the design of the methodology, and be allowed to have an experiment fail. Sometimes it is more educational to write up a lab report on a failed experiment than one that worked flawlessly.Even in some college labs as was trained with made-to-work experiment kits - I definitely learned less from those than from made-from-scratch experiments.It would be nice to have a shift from a "what you need to know" focus (cramming in as many subjects as possible) to a "this is how to learn what we know" focus (fewer subjects in-depth with application of scientific method in a way that could be generalized).Good post. I think I'll be asking creationists about their "control group" in the future.

JT - you've spent a lot of time in this thread defending creation science by claiming that any criticisms leveled at creation science are only true of somecreation scientists.Please provide an example of a single valid scientific report by a "creation scientist," preferrably in a peer-reviewed journal.Doing so would prove your point that a creation scientist is capable of practicing real science.Thanks.

Robert: Again, the problem you seem to have is with some teaching or communicating science, and not with true science itself.I looked around briefly on the web for excerpts from public school textbooks on evolution, but unfortunately came up short. (I did find countless pro-creation websites declaring that evolution is taught as truth - hopefully you've actually checked several textbooks before you made your "never said" statement, and are not just going by biased secondary sources.)Could you please post some text book excerpts that say evolution is proven and fact?But the point I really want to make:
If a better job was done teaching the basis of science and the scientific method, we wouldn't have to worry about people misunderstanding and misrepresenting statements regarding science. In this case, if students are required to understand what a "theory" is, then we don't have to concern ourselves with qualifying each and every theory as neither "proven" nor "fact", since the students would know that no theory can be either.Some states/districts have attempted to put a "band-aid" on text-books by adding a disclaimer to each book stating that evolution is "just an unproven theory". There are multiple problems with this, to name a few:
- It furthers misunderstanding of the definition of "theory".
- It detracts from the strength of the theory of evolution (strength from confirmation by countless experiments and observations).
- It distinguishes evolution from all other theories.Why is evolution "just a theory," but not any other theory? Should every theory taught include your qualification "Science has not proven _______ is true"? Hopefully you realize that some religious groups want to remove the Germ Theory of Disease from science curricula because is clashes with their beliefs - would you support the removal or qualification of the germ theory? Why or why not?The theory of evolution has been confirmed by the scientific method, and has yet to be falsified. The theory relies on no supernatural concepts. This is why it is taught as science, because it is science. I haven't erred in this respect. I have never stated or implied that the theory of evolution was a proven fact.You are levelling criticism at me personally based on your conception of popular beliefs, beliefs that I do not hold or support.I am wholly against the intentional or unintentional misrepresentation or misteaching of science to the masses - thus I'd get just as angry as you at someone publishing textbooks stating that evolution has been proven.Perhaps if you send me one of the examples you have of textbooks making this mistatement, and I'm outraged enough, I'll write a complaint to the publishers.

Robert - please respond to my previous message to you regarding this issue:
http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" -->EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"I fear you are ignoring it because you don't have any examples of textbooks, and are merely restating propaganda you've heard - the simple fact that you use the absolute term "all" is one reason for my view...Please, prove me wrong and give me some examples...

Byers, you state: However, you were the one that made the claim (not me): Your claim, you provide the evidence. Even just a single textbook that presents a scientific origins theory as fact.I realize that by you saying "I'm a thinker..." you must be saying that you just think stuff up (make it up), since you repeatedly make broad generalizations as well as detailed assertions with no evidenciary foundation whatsoever.

Not necessarily, since you still have put the conclusion/bias in your title.A large portion of the problem with 'creation science' is that, (when it is not trying to disprove evolution), it is trying to find hypotheses and evidence to fit a foregone conclusion - which is not science, where the conclusion comes after the hypothesis and evidence.If you are using science to study evolution, you are doing evolutionary science - it doesn't matter if you confirm or falsify evolution, you are still an evolutionary scientist.If you come in from an anti- or pro- evolution perspective, (as in you are biased in only looking for evidence against or for evolution), you are not a scientist at all...One issue I would like you to comment on from an earlier message of mine:
You've defended creation scientists by saying that only some of them practice bad science - Can you provide a single example of a peer-reviewed publication by a creation scientist in a reputable journal? That would settle the dispute whether a creation scientist can indeed practice true science.Thanks.

Again, until you give me some sort of textbook examples, or even some secondary analysis of teaching methods or textbooks, your ideas that public schools teach evolution as fact are nothing but assertions. Also, no public school science class should ever teach for or against the Bible - that would be grounds for teacher reprimand in my mind.I was taught evolution in high school and Christianity was never mentioned, and I understood that evolution was theory. You continue to be perplexed because you apparently can't, or don't choose to, understand how the scientific method works. Just because evolution is taught as theory instead of fact, does not mean it is not taught at all - that is absurd.I share your concern that the public is not getting a proper education in science. I believe that teaching a real understanding of the scientific method should be the foundation of science curricula - then we don't have to worry that someone will misconstrue hypothesis as conclusion, or theory as fact. We also would have to worry less that they are mislead by the media, or worse by those spewing false anti-science propaganda. To be frank, I feel you have ignored my very reasonable comments on science education, and instead continue to write mumbo-jumbo about your misconceptions of science.Please reread my message in this thread, where I discuss the importance of teaching scientific method and terminology, so that the public isn't fooled or confused into the type of preconceptions you have:
http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" -->EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"If we teach students what a 'theory' is and how it works, we don't have to qualify every theory that is taught.I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer me the first time I asked:
Do you believe the Germ Theory of Disease should not be taught in public schools? It contradicts the religious beliefs of some, and they would prefer it not taught. What is your stance?Should the science behind the Germ Theory of Disease be removed or qualified because of the spiritual beliefs of some?

Nice ambition - however, as a point of career advice, you won't need two PhDs. The department you receive your PhD has little to do with your training - the lab and project you choose to your dissertation research in defines the bulk of your training. It will be very easy for you to get training in both genomics and cell bio in a single PhD, and you would learn very little extra doing two PhDs. In fact, today you'd be hard-pressed to find a lab exclusively doing cell bio or genomic research in isolation of the other. JT, you have to be very careful - If you follow the path of training you outline here, you will learn much about the scientific method and the basis of molecular evolution. If you hold fast to your current conception that "genetics holds many problems for the TOE", you will be denying the underpinnings of biology and science in general, and so will not be much of a scientist.And since your "goal of doing valid research which shows flaws with the TOE" is very biased, that holds problems as well...I've heard your ambition expressed by other young creos - that they'll get a PhD in some field of molecular biology, do some honest research, and prove the theory of evolution wrong.I think the misconception is that all of the scientists currently working in genetics accept evolution of faith and therefore are blind to any flaws - and the follow up misconception that just one person with a creo-perspective and scientific training could expose these flaws.The truth is, the theory of evolution is put to the test every day in thousands of labs, by scientists who realize they would become more famous and renowned than Darwin overnight if they proved his theory incorrect.Science isn't ignoring all of the flaws of evolution, it is actively looking for them.I'd be interested to hear your list of examples that results in your conclusion, "genetics holds many problems for the TOE," perhaps in another thread when you have time...

I think you are missing what I was trying to communicate - you are correct about the scientific method.The theory of evolution has been tested countless times by the scientific method, and the results: confirmed countless times by the scientific method, and not falsified by the scientific method.If you look at the science of the theory of evolution and say it is wrong, you are stating that despite the scientific method-based evidence. Therefore, you are denying the scientific method by denying the theory of evolution before falsifying evidence is found.Does that make more sense? Correct, but disagreeing with a theory based on scientific evidence for non-scientific reasons makes a very bad scientist indeed. But that's just it - no true scientist is trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution - but they are constantly testing the theory of evolution. Your statements again reveal your bias, and some slight misunderstanding of how science proceeds. A true scientist does not enter into a field to "prove" or "disprove" a theory, they enter to "test" a hypotheses or theory, and based on the evidence they confirm, falsify, or revise hypotheses and theories. Regarding the theory of evolution - it is true that it has only been elaborated upon, because of testing without falsification, not because of bias in testing. I would be really interested in hearing one of these untested hypotheses.

Interesting - why do you have such confidence in this hypothesis?
Is there specific evidence you feel has been overlooked?Also, as a word of caution, keep in mind that the use of the term "junk DNA" means different things depending on who is saying it.In the popular science press, "junk DNA" is usually used as a catch-all for all DNA not known to have a direct role with genes - unfortunately the word "junk" tends to imply "without function". However, geneticists don't think of it in such simple terms, and many major projects are ongoing to associate functional importance with what the lay press calls "junk DNA". Multiple groups of biostatisticians have created algorithms that use comparative genomics to help identify potential regions of biological importance in the non-genic sequence.In fact, there was just a major Nature paper a month or so ago examining the biological role of viral elements in the human genome that many had previously thought of as inconsequential.(I don't want you to have the misconception that science is not examining the nature and function of "junk DNA").