What is science?

quote:

---

Science is the search for the truth, i.e. reality, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.
  —JohnPaul

---

I think you are mixing philosophy and science, two different fields. Science is the search for knowledge about the natural world, while philosophy is the search for Truth. I would include religion with philosophy. The two fields (science and philosophy) use different techniques for their search for the truth. In the case of science, objective data and natural mechanisms are used as an investigatory tool to investigate the natural, physical world. In philosophy, subjective experiences and subjective arguments are used as tools to investigate the greater Truths of life and metaphysical positions.I would say that science is not a search for Truth or Knowledge, but for the truth about the natural world and knowledge about our physical reality. (notice the use of caps)

quote:

---

Observe, form a hypothesis, perhaps make some predictions about that phenomenon and test that hypothesis/ predictions.

---

Philosophy can be tested in such a way too, but through subjective metrics. Science uses objective, physically based metrics.Your definition is a great start, but in my opinion it is not specific enough. I believe that philosophy is an important field, but can not help us investigate physical realities.

quote:

---

The fact is science is knowledge.

---

As I said in my previous post, this is a misleading generalization. Science is knowledge about the physical world gained through objective, or intersubjective, measurements. Scientia may have been the latin root, but that doesn't mean it has to carry over wholesale to the actual definition in english. Also, science is used loosely in other fields as well, such as library sciences.By limiting the physical sciences to natural mechanisms we are not limiting "science", just defining what "science" means in a certain context.

quote:

---

Galileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."

---

No, Galileo opined, he never observed. Again, this is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement grounded in physical and repeatible observations.

quote:

---

In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."

---

Again, a philosophical position, not a scientific observation. Their statement of "One mind designing" goes against the claims of polytheistic religions, which have the same valid claim on creation as any other religion has. You seem to be falling into the same problem that you are accusing us of, ignoring someone else's diety. If you ignore the claim that science should not consider Shiva or Zeus, then you are no better than naturalistic science according to your own logic.

quote:

---

LM please keep this discussion in context. I was answering sidelined's question as to why mathematics was evidence for (a) God (which really wasn't what I stated).

---

Sorry, quick on the trigger.

quote:

---

That evidence is very apparent to those willing to see it. It IS via the microscope that we see the specified and irreducible complexity that is life.

---

By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science. You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it. In science, you need no such pre-existing belief. Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one. Just like the "Face" on Mars, apparent design can be the product of natural mechanisms, as is seen in evolutionary mechanisms. Again, natural mechanisms are enough to explain natural phenomena, which is the statement of science. Pseudoscience, such as ID, wants to add unobserved mechanisms. They then cry foul when they are not included. Other than religious presuppositions, I can't see what they are on about since the design seen in biological systems can already be explained through natural mechanisms.

quote:

---

Yes MrH evolutionists use double standards when it comes to the theory of evolution vs. any alternative.

---

Nope, evolution uses the same methodologies as any other science that is trying to explain past events. This includes geology, forensics, astronomy, and various other non-biological sciences.For example, even though we can't witness the conception of a child, we can still test for paternity. Evolution is no different. The theory makes predicitions of what we will find in nature, and those predictions have been observed. This includes fossil evidence and genetic evidence. Those observed, and fulfilled predictions are measured using our five senses, or instruments that aid our senses.

quote:

---

That said we all know that the major transformations claimed by evolutionists have never been observed and can't be objectively tested.

---

First hand? No. The evidence left behind "at the crime scene"? Yes.

quote:

---

However the ToE is inferred because of naturalism and the grip it has on many people, including scientists (not all).

---

Naturalism is used because it works. As MrH states, show us how assuming supernatural mechanisms has aided in furthering our knowledge in nature.

quote:

---

Ya see MrH I am of the very honest opinion that on a level playing field ID and Creation would be seen as at least as scientific as the ToE.

---

First you need a testable, falsifiable theory. Care to offer one?

quote:

---

If the fossil record is the only means available for using the scientific method to observe macro evolution, and if that record provides nothing observable that corresponds with the theory, then isnt the evolutionists left holding a groundless theory?.

---

There is ample fossil evidence. On top of that, we also have DNA evidence from living species today that supports common ancestory and macroevolution. Fossils alone are enough, but couple this with the DNA evidence and evolution is a very solid theory.

quote:

---

Without convincing evidence from the fossils the theory of evolution would have no basis for grounding itself in the scientific method and would be left in the realms of faith. True or false?

---

It would be problematic, I agree. However, given the myriad of transitional fossils found in the fossil record this isn't a problem. And again, the DNA evidence is very substantial as well.So far all we have heard from you is playground retorts that sound like "Am too, Am not". You might want to actually look at websites other than the creationist ones you seem to frequent. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a great start.

quote:

---

But transitionals only exist in the minds of people who want to see them. ID is about biology. There is no way to tell if what you think is a transitional got to be that way via biological evolution/ genetic heredity.
I ask for an objective test and instead get a very subjective test. Go figure...
  —JP

---

I'll give you a test. We shouldn't find a fossil whale that dates earlier than any of the known transitionals from land mammals.How about another. Retroposons found in the DNA of whales and even toed ungulates is strong support for common ancestory for the two groups. Any objective measure for a common creator? Or are you finally going to understand how science actually works, through objective evidence and falsifiability?

quote:

---

I asked you (NN really) to provide a falsification for the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals. Typical of evolutionists you twist it around and provide a non-response. YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe.

---

Already been done. Nothing about abiogenesis, Big Bang, or solar system formation violates any known physical law. Therefore, all of these could have come about by natural means.

quote:

---

I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.

---

Violation of all known physical laws (fast moving plates, increased decay rates for isotopes). That is reference science uses, and has used to falsify the global flood models put forth by creationists. Maybe you should look up "ad hoc hypothesis" sometime. You may then understand why the global flood is scientific folly.

quote:

---

The reality is it is your inability to understand what YECs say about life. Linne, the father of our biological classification system, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kind. Was his work science?

---

Out of reverence for his effort, science uses some his classification system. However, science has now narrowed life down to one created kind (LUCA).

quote:

---

ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.

---

While denying what the design mechanism was: Evolution. IDists ignore an OBSERVED design mechanism (evolution) and insert a design mechanism that has never been observed, a non-terrestrial designer. They discard evolution because of a religious presupposition, not because of a logical conclusion drawn from evidence. And speaking of "What is Science?", how do we falsify ID?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
No, John Paul, we don't know this.
John Paul:
Yes MrH we do know this. In fact YOU could falsify it. The fact that you would rather rant and whine shows me that you can't.

---

Let me see if I can break this down.Premise one: Non-biological specified complexity is due to the acts of an intelligence.Observation: There is "specified complexity" in biological structures.Conclusion 1: The specified complexity in biological structures HAS to be the act of an intelligence.Conclusion 2: ALL known specified complexity is due to an intelligent agent.Conclusion 1 is not warranted, and therefore the jump to conclusion 2 is also unwarranted. For conclusion 1 to be true we have to observe an intelligent agent creating specified complexity in biological structures. Since we do not have this observation, then conclusion 2 is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am claiming that your conclusion of ALL specified complexity being caused by intelligent agency is not supported.

quote:

---

Premise one: Non-biological specified complexity is due to the acts of an intelligence.

​

OK so far.

​

Observation: There is "specified complexity" in biological structures.

​

Bingo.

---

Hehehe, two for two ain't bad. I do want to understand your position, but repeating "Nope, your wrong," doesn't help much. Even if you have explained it before, you might want to give a quick synopsis anyway. Some of our memories aren't that great.

quote:

---

Conclusion 1: The specified complexity in biological structures HAS to be the act of an intelligence.

​

Nope. We can safely infer intelligence from our cuurent knowledge base.

---

So lets change it to "safely infer". My contention is that we can't safely infer intelligence because there are non-intelligent algorithms that could result in the same phenomena. This is the reason why the Face on Mars is thought to be natural instead of designed, because there are natural mechanisms that can cause the phenomenon.Take the enzyme produced from the nylC gene. It has a very specific activity towards nylon derivatives. It is complex because it is a protein. This specified complexity came about due to a mutation, and the bacteria that had this mutation outcompeted the other bacteria. In the process, the population gained information (specific nylonase activity) through the process of mutation and selection. This is evidence that specified complexity can arise through the auspices of natural selection and mutation.Now that I have shown the rise of specified complexity within the realm of natural mechanisms (mutation and natural selection) you must show one of two things:1. That the bacteria were designed to produce this mutant through a teleological, goal oriented mechanism.2. The mechanism that created specified complexity due to intelligent design.If the nylonase gene is not enough evidence for specific complexity via natural mechanisms, please explain why.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Really? Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.

---

Do they create babies the same way they create artifacts, buildings, cars, etc.? Did you pick the sex of your baby? Did you design the genes that went into your babies genome? Did you have a certain outcome in mind? Did you consciously design new IC systems into your baby so that other people would know that the baby was made by human design?OR, did you rely on the natural process of gametogenesis with random cross overs via meiosis, fertilization, placental impregnation, natural hormonal feedback between mother and fetus, etc. These are natural processes that are not under the control of humans, they are not deisgned by humans, and are therefore not design functions. The only thing you controlled was the chances that fertilization would occur, hardly what I would call design.

quote:

---

LM:
OR, did you rely on the natural process of gametogenesis with random cross overs via meiosis, fertilization, placental impregnation, natural hormonal feedback between mother and fetus, etc.

​

John Paul:
Please provide any evidence that these processes originated naturally.

---

These mechanisms are under the control of proteins. The only mechanisms that have been observed to change protein function is random mutation. The only known mechanism to cause the accretion of mutations in populations is natural selection. Therefore, it is safe to infer that the mechansisms listed above originated naturally.