Creationism/ID as Science

It is very much the real issue. It is the core issue. If it can be shown through a testable hypothesis that creationism is scientific, then the scientific world would be forced to accept it using their own criteria for acceptance. Once accepted, then it can be taught as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. And their best chance to displace evolution is to show it as scientific. It's not a halfway proposition, like being a little bit pregnant. Either it is or is not scientific. Since this hasn’t been shown through the scientific method, some creationist avoid this hurdle by simply ignoring it. They propagate creationism as science without a testable hypothesis.But this assessment only applies to a segment of the creationist community who push it as science, (ID). Others are more honest and can acknowledge that creationism is not science, yet still want it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution, which is wrong. It can still be taught in schools, but not as science, perhaps as part of a comparative religion class.

Huh?? You are wrong about this. Being scientific certainly is sufficient for a scientific topic.And you may not accept Newtonian physics, but it most certainly has not been abandoned or replaced. It is the fundamental physics being taught at all levels of the educational system. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics dealing with interactions at the atomic and subatomic level.

Never said anything about displacement. I said IF creationism met the rigors of the scientific method, there would be a valid, rational, science based argument for it to be accepted by the scientific community and then it could be taught alongside evolution as a science based alternative. How could the science community reject it if it met the rigors of the scientific method? They could not. Of course this will not happen, we are speaking hypothetically here. Newtonian physics is widely accepted and has NOT been replaced by QM. Think of it as two main divisions. Classical or Newtonian physics dealing with the macro world and Quantum mechanics dealing with the micro world. Newtonian physics is the basis for all physics in the macro world; from statics to dynamics to thermodynamics to a whole host of other branches of physics. We continue to use it because it is the best method to solve the problems of the macro world, not because the mathematics is simpler.Quantum mechanics is only better at addressing interactions on the atomic and sub atomic level or in isolated cases where Newtonian physics fails. It makes no sense to try an examine the ballistics of a bullet leaving a gun with quantum packets of energy or to represent the motion of the bullet by its quantum wave form. This is nonsense. There is no comparison between Newtonian physics and the previously false science of luminiferous ether. Newtonian physics is not false and will not one day be replaced by some better science. Newtonian physics has been around for 400 years and has been proven countless times. It is not a theory, it is a set of laws grounded in mathematics.

This is not entirely true. Our disagreement seems to be purely semantics. The term classical or traditional physics has often been used to describe Newtonian physics with Einstein's Relativity being treated as separate. Here are a few examples: When I took physics in college, my text book included Newtonian mechanics which was described as classical. The text also included chapters on relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, but these were treated as wholly separate topics.In this wiki article on Physics , the term classical is used in conjuction with classical mechanics as a broad theory with major subtopics including Newtonian physics, Newton's laws of motion, Lagrangian mechanics, Hamiltonian mechanics, Chaos theory, Fluid dynamics, Continuum mechanics. The theory of Relativity is defined separately whose major subtopics include special and general relativity. These statements are also not entirely correct. Your problem is using absolute statements such as relativity has replaced Newtonian mechanics without further clarification. This is simply not true in the vast majority of cases.It is an understatement to say Newtonian mechanics is used in many conditions. It is used in the overwhelming and vast majority of conditions. Relativity has replaced Newtonian mechanics only in very special situations where Newtonian mechanics breaks down. These are cases where the motion of matter approaches the speed of light or where great distances are involved.If relativity has replaced Newtonian mechanics, then the vast majority of the world would be using relativistic equivalents to the basic physics of Statics, Kinematics, Dynamics, Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, Aerodynamics, Pneumatics, Acoustics, Optics, Thermodynamics, Electricity, Magnetism, Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, Magnetostatics to name a few.But the vast majority of the world does not modify or replace the mathematics or physical laws used in these areas of physics with equivalent mathematics or laws from Einstein’s relativity.Why? Because the vast majority of the time, we are dealing with a single frame of reference, at much slower speeds than the speed of light and at much smaller distances than at planetary distances. In these instances, Newtonian physics provides correct and acceptable solutions.That is not to say that the areas of physics listed above are not addressed using Relativity because they are when conditions warrant it.Relativity has its place to be sure and Einstein’s contribution was significant. But it should be kept in perspective.It is also a misnomer to say Newtonian mechanics is used "only" because it is simpler and gives a good enough approximation. There is another rather significant reason. Newtonian mechanics is imbedded everywhere in our world.From manufacturing to construction to research and development to nearly all commercial and institutional endeavors. Extracating Newtonian mechanics in order to replace it with a "more accurate" relatavistic based physics would cause worldwide disruption, confusion, and would be completely unnecessary.The US can't even convert to the metric system, let alone uproot Newtonian mechanics.

Scientific truth is a continual scale, it’s a matter of degree where truth is measured not in the simple true or false, but in the amount of truth it contains compared to alternative theories. Theories in science are true, but one theory may be more true than another. I believe it is more accurate to say Newtonian physics is true, but Einsteinian physics is more true under certain conditions.Einsteinian physics didn't prove that newtonian physics was wrong, but that newtonian physics contained some amount of falsehood under certain conditions. That’s why I take issue with blanket statements such as Newtonian physics is wrong, incorrect. This implies that it should no longer be used and that another theory should be used under all conditions as a valid replacement.I believe we are in agreement, and you have qualified your absolute statement about Newtonian mechanics. I simply have reservations about describing anything scientific in absolute terms.

Then you acknowledge that the term Classical physics has both included and excluded relativity as part of the definition depending on the source. As such, a blanket statement Classical != Newtonian does not hold in all circumstances.

Consider it acknowledged.

Hmmm... Why do you ask?As a post-doctoral Research Biologist with an interest in quantum mechanics, surely you know.This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-18-2005 01:18 PM

Yes, I did leave it out mainly because it seemed further removed from your other interest which are more.....shall we say mainstream science? I'd be interested if you started a thread on that topic though and describe the current state of research. Yes, my metaphor may have been misleading. I wasn't referring to the natural "world", but the "world" of human endeavors and the use of our "world" of knowledge.

I think we are dancing around the same point of view. AccuracyEinsteinian physics has its applications under very, very narrow and specialized circumstances. The vast majority of traditional physics gets along quite well without it. As such, I don’t believe Einsteinian physics will replace the use of traditional physics in the vast majority of practical applications at any point in the foreseeable future.My initial objection in this thread was to nwr who said that we don't accept Newtonian physics anymore because it has been replaced with something better, (quantum physics).My point is that we do indeed accept and continue to use Newtonian physics. It has not been replaced except under very specialized circumstances. I didn't intend to be such an ardent supporter of Newton, it just turned out that way. And I’m not minimizing Einstein’s contributions, but I believe Newton’s are equally significant.

You say its not correct then you move forward and agree with my post anyway. Einstein physics has not superceded Newtonian physics. Supercede means to cause to be set aside, especially to displace as inferior or antiquated, to replace. Newtonian physics has NOT been replaced in the vast majority of applications, it is used far more frequently that Einstein’s physics.It is inferior to Einsteinian physics only under special circumstances. Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used much more frequently by a larger number of people than Einsteinian physics? I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, Newtonian physics is accepted and continues to be used.

Now you begin to understand why I claim that Newtonian physics has not been superseded and continues to be widely accepted and used. It helps to understand that theoretical physicists are not the only group of professionals who routinely use physical theories. Scientist develop the theories and engineers put them into practice. So when it comes to the practical side of life, Newtonian physics is much more frequently used compared to Einstenian physics.

Yes Ned I find it amazing also. I thought for sure that my last post #48 would have made my point clear but then you reply with Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that!. I simply do not get it. I don’t think you read post 48 very closely. I’ll try one more time.Lets start by setting aside all work being done by theoretical physicists. Ok?, Just set aside that group of individuals and the work they do. Now consider all other groups of people in the entire world involved in technical professions. That would include engineers, production managers, analysts, technicians, construction contractors, etc.This group of people may work for corporations both large and small or a whole variety of governmental agencies. Now stay with me here. Of that group, there will be a significant percentage that routinely use Newtonian physics. They use those theories to develop all sorts of products, projects, systems, etc. They turn Newtonian theories into practical reality for all of us. That group of individuals would not consider Newtonian physics to have been superseded, antiquated, or otherwise necessary for replacement with Einstenian physics.To that group, Newtonian physics continues to be widely used and accepted. To that group, Newtonian physics is used much more frequently than Einstenian physics. There are a few exceptions of course and you mentioned a few isolated cases, space craft navigation systems and GPS products.Now consider the group of theoretical physicists. That group may set aside Newtonian physics in favor of Einstenian physics depending on their particular area of research or they may not if Newtonian physics provides sufficiently accurate answers for the problems at hand.Now comparing the two groups; theoretical physicists and everybody else who uses Newtonian physics, The group that routinely use and accept Newtonian physics is far larger than the group that does not. For this reason, my assertion in message 48 stands, when it comes to the practical side of life, Newtonian physics is much more frequently used compared to Einstenian physics. Yes, I want to get real nitpicky because the difference of opinion is in the nitpick. In this statement you use the term we. By that I assume you refer to theoretical physicists. But the other we I referred to above and in message 48 do not use GR nor is it necessary for them to even consider it. Those Newtonian theorems were widely used and accepted long before GR and that continues to be the case. GR didn’t change anything for the vast majority of people who use the theorems of Newtonian physics on a daily basis.

***sigh***

Since I had already started a response and since I don't believe there enough here for a new topic, I hope everyone doesn't mind if I squeeze it in as my last post on the Einstein vs Newtonian discussion. Yes, we are saying the same thing but there seems to be confusion on both the meaning and the application of the term supersede. The confusion is theory vs practice.I have not disputed that Einstein’s physics gives more accurate results. I tried to agree with Ned about the accuracy in message 43 when I said: Notice here I wasn’t arguing the accuracy of Newtonian physics. Also note my use of the term applications when I said, Einsteinian physics has its applications under very, very narrow and specialized circumstances. I wasn’t referring to theory, I was referring to its actual use or application in the world.I said Einstenian physics will not replace the use of traditional physics in the vast majority of practical applications, which I believe to be true. Practical applications, not theory.Having set the base position in practical applications in the first paragraph of this message, I then went on to note my objection to nwr who said we don’t accept Newtonian physics because it has been replaced by quantum physics. Again there is a big difference between theory and practice. In theory that may be true, but quantum mechanics will not replace Newtonian physics in common practice. No. Newtonian physics is used in common practice because it has been proven by experimentation countless times long before GR. You could say that the use of Newtonian physics in practice has been validated by Einstenian physics because the deviation between the two is so infinitesimal.If GR had proven to have a significant impact, then Newtonian physics would have given way to GR in common practice as it has in a few cases which I have already noted, but not in the majority of situations. In the theoretical sense it looses to GR every time. In a practical sense, it rarely looses. Again, I have never argued accuracy. Newtonian physics has a better footing than Einstenian physics in the practical world despite it giving less accurate answers. I tried to make the point again about theory vs practice in Message 48: In this post I was trying to annunciate the difference between the work of theoretical physicists and all other professionals who use Newtonian physics instead of Einstenian physics, but my point fell on deaf ears when Ned replied, Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that! His entire response was based on theory and more specifically accuracy which has never been in dispute.As I noted in the subtitle previously It’s the nature of theory vs practice.And so we are back to ***sigh***Last word