Creationism/ID as Science

There isn't a good definition of "science". There are a lot of characteristics of science, and we usually recognize good science from those.So called scientific creationists do some empirical work. As to whether that is enough for it to qualify as a science is hard to say. But I think it doesn't really matter. Whether creationism is, or is not science, isn't the real issue.What creationists want, is to displace evolution and to have creationism taught in its place. The important question, then, is whether there is enough science in creationism, for it to displace evolution. And I think it is quite clear that there is not.A scientific theory is often said to be an explanation. But that's a mistake. It's on the basis of that mistake that creationists want to say that creationism is a science.A scientific theory is, most importantly, a way of identifying and organizing data, such as will allow useful predictions. The theory of evolution does this. It allows data on morphology to be collated with data from DNA and data from fossils. It also allows the identification and collating of data from biochemistry. It is the theory of evolution that unifies the field of biology.If creationism is ever to be a successful enough theory to displace evolution, then it would need to be at least as effective in unifying biology. Personally, I don't see how that could ever happen.

That's how scientists think about explanation. But non-scientists may have a different idea on what counts as an explanation. Some of them actually think that "God did it" is an explanation, and if this can be backed up with a scriptural quotation they take it to be an excellent explanation.We are not having an in-house debate among scientists. Rather, science is being attacked from outside of science. We need to describe science in a way that is not confusing to the average citizen. And, in my opinion, use of the term "explanation" tends to confuse the issue.

That's not how science is practiced. Being scientific is not sufficient. Nobody doubts that Newtonian physics was scientific. But we don't accept it today, because we have replaced it with something better (quantum physics).

Being scientific is not sufficient to displace current science. There is a turnover. We drop support for older theories, and adopt newer ones. We would not adopt a creationist theory, even if scientific, unless it could to at least as well as evolutionary biology.Sure, we still use Newtonian science. But, in principle, it has been replaced by relativity and quantum physics. We continue to use Newtonian science, only because it is a good approximation to those theories for many of the problems we want to solve, and the mathematics is simpler. But we no longer refer to the luminiferous ether, which was considered good science during much of the Newtonian era. We no longer reference phlogiston, although J.B. Priestley's research based on phlogiston was certainly scientific.

I avoided saying that, because you cannot always compare. A new theory might be better in some respects, and worse in others. If we adopt it, that will be because we believe it to be better, at least with respect to what we consider most important. That would be my view, also. But I don't see that the creationists have any chance of doing that. They are not even trying--they are attempting to force the issue with politics, rather than by producing good science.

That's not correct. Einstein's relativistic physics as fully superseded Newtonian physics. It is true that there are only narrow specialized circumstances where the difference is large enough to matter, and thus we continue to use the simpler equations. I was trying to keep it simple, so I only mentioned quantum physics, and omitted relativity. I corrected that when you became argumentative. That's not quite correct. We continue to use Newtonian equations as a convenient approximation. However, we have changed the definition of length, for example, from the Newtonian standard to the one based on relativity. That is, the meter is tied to the speed of light, rather than to a platinum rod. That's one indication that we have moved from the Newtonian paradigm. I'm a strong admirer of Newton. That his physics has been superseded, does not detract from its value. It is unlikely that relativity could have been discovered, were it not for the research program initiated by Newton and other scientists of that time.One of my desktop computers is named after Newton. That indicates my respect for him.

Newtonian physics is used in practice only, but certainly not in theory.

What about psychology, and perhaps other social sciences?Okay, perhaps this would take us off topic. I'm just suggesting that your statement might be a little too broad.

My point was simply that psychology does investigate intentionality, although IMO they have not yet successfully accounted for it.

This is a common creationist charge, based on their misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science.

Your mistake.I'm not sure what you mean by "the assumed philosophical framework of contemporary science." However science, as we know it today, came into existence because of its adoption of empirical methodologies. These are what distinguished it from philosophy. Creationism is quite clearly not science, because it is not based on these empirical methodologies. You have posted that elsewhere. However, it is just the opinion of one scientist. It is not, in any sense, a defining characterization of science. Paul Davies might well be deeply religious, and may prefer to describe science in a manner that he can integrate into his religious views. But he does not speak for all scientists, and scientists would not all agree with him. Quite so. It is not part of a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is not something that has been peer reviewed by philosophers of science. Rather, it is a marketing blurb that is being used in the selling of religion. It carries exactly as much weight in science as do the statements Dawkin's makes promoting atheism. That is to say, it carries no weight at all.

A great deal of truth is determined by convention, particularly if one includes measurements conducted in accordance with measuring conventions.You might not like to admit it, but even Biblical truth is established by convention - in this case, the conventions that decide which ancient texts are to be included as part of the canon. The average joe does not get to define "science." Then there is obviously no reason for you to be posting here No, there was no science at that time. There was philosophy, which included natural philosophy. But the methodology that we know as science was not an institutionalized practice at that time.

As so often happens, you are way off topic.Let me see if I can steer it back toward the topic, while responding.Let me point out that most scientists are quite humble. They see themselves as reading what God carved into the mountains and valleys.By the way, C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist.