Creation science II

False.Creation Scientists begin with the conclusion, and seek to "interpret" the evidence to fit their preconceived comclusion. This is called "apologetics," and it occupies the vast majority of Creationism. It is religious in nature, and does not follow the scientific method - it only appears to do so at first, particularly to laypersons. In a very real way, apologetics are intended to trick those who are uneducated in science into believing that the preconceived conclusion has some sort of scientific validity.For example, Creation Science typically asserts that "creation is evidence of a creator." This requires as an axiom that everything that exists must have been "created." In this way, the conclusion (a Creator exists) is contained in the initial axioms (all things must have been created), and is circular reasoning. The fact is, we don't know if "all things" need to be "created." Modern physics and cosmology seem to imply the opposite; in fact, the mere notion of creation ex nihilo violates thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.Creation Science also attempts to "interpret" fossil evidence to support special creation despite a very well-established chain of organisms demonstrating a clear and gradual formation of new features with increasing variety over time. This "interpretation" typically involved purposefully ignoring evidence to the contrary of the preconceived conclusion, and insisting that any evidence found supports that conclusion without demonstrating how or even looking further than "look, a fossil that doesn't exist previously int he fossil record! It must have been Created!"Real science begins with observation, not conclusion. Real science does not "interpret" evidence, it "follows" the evidence wherever it leads. When evidence contradicts established models, the evidence is not "reinterpreted" to fit - rather, the existing model is modified or discarded to better fit the new evidence.Real science alters the conclusion to match the evidence. Creation Science "reinterprets" the evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion.Real science also utilizes the peer review process - and not only amongst scientists who all already agree. The purpose of peer review is to have your conclusions ripped apart by your colleagues - only by vigorous debate and independent examination can bias be removed from the scientific method. Only those papers that survive the peer review process are published in scientific journals. Creation Science has never, not once, ever, managed to have a paper published in a scientific journal. This is not because "evolutionists" disagree with Creation Science, but rather because flaws in their methodologies are easy to point out, and flawed methodologies are poor science.The highest honors in science are given for disproving or meaningfully changing existing theories. Newton's Theory of Gravity was supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which did a better job of explaining the observed evidence (though Newtonian mechanics still work just fine at the appropriate scale). Creation Science has failed to do so not because of a deeply entrenched belief system that supports evolution, but because the evidence so strongly shows that the theory of Evolution is incredibly accurate, and Creation Science "models" (when they've been presented at all) have failed to match or exceed that level of accuracy. This is the crux of the issue, Kelly - the scientific method does not seek to confirm hypotheses. It seeks to disprove them. Each time a hypothesis fails to be disproved, it gains additional credibility as potentially accurate - but science does not confirm or prove anything. It tests the accuracy of predictions, but all conclusions are held tentatively. "Proof" is the realm of pure mathematics.Creation Science, however, as you say does seek to prove their preconceived conclusion. Do you see the disconnect? Real scientists establish a model that seems to fit the evidence, and then they try to disprove the model, and gauge the model by whether it can be disproved. Creation Scientists establish a conclusion, and then seek evidence to support that conclusion - it's the scientific method turned backwards. Any "model or hypothesis" can be scientific. The methodology is unscientific, because it fails to adhere to the scientific method - the very definition of what is or is not scientific. And yet you are incorrect, Kelly. Scientists are seeking the most accurate model possible to explain the origin of the variety of life on Earth. They will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the evidence eventually falsifies long-held and well-established concepts - just as Relativity has replaced the Newtonian Theory of Gravity. Creation scientists are seeking to confirm what they already believe that they "know."It's a matter of completely different methodologies, Kelly, and because it does not in any way follow the Scientific Method, Creation Science is not science at all.

Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.Not entirely of course - his actual intention was to nudge you towards supporting your assertions with something more than "Kelly says so." He gave you a Creationist paper to support your assertion that Creation Science follows the scientific method.Unfortunately, Creation Science does not follow the scientific method. It appears to for laypersons, because it engages in seeking evidence and testing and uses the same words that science uses. But the methodology is flawed from the outset - Creation Science is not about following the evidence wherever it leads; it's about supporting a conclusion arrived at before the evidence is even examined. The evidence is then "interpreted" to fit the conclusion. The scientific method would require that we alter the conclusion to fit the evidence - ergo, Creation Science is not following the scientific method.I'll demonstrate using your paper: It sure sounds like science, doesn't it? They speak of specific methodology for carrying out their experiment, and use all teh right terminology. This is a real experiment - I don't doubt that they actually carbon-dated this wood.However, botht he experiment and the methodology are critically flawed.First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old - after that point the results are useless. This experiment was set up as a "blind" test, where the lab didn't know how old the sample was supposed to be - they were simply told to date it with C14. This means that for any sample older than 25,000 years, the test is doomed to give meaningless results from the start.Radiological dating can use many other isotopes, and the correct isotope to use is dependent on the age of the sample. In this case, carbon dating is like using a microscope to read - you're zoomed in too far to see the letters. The blind nature of the test ensures that the lab wouldn't be able to point this out.The paper tries to assert that, if the sample were millions of years old, all of the original carbon would have disappeared from the sample - but this doesn't address the fact that you cannot use C14 to date samples older than around 25,000 years. Period.The larger flaws in the paper come later, however, and are rooted in a flawed methodology that does not follow the scientific method: As an aside, observe the direct contradiction in the bolded sections. Is this a "legitimate" age or not?But mroe to the point, this conclusion depends on the assertions that:1) a global Flood actually occurred
2) the sample was buried catastrophically in sand in that Flood
3) a stronger magnetic field existed, altering the radiocarbon results
4) Because the Flood "buried a lot of carbon," the C14 results were further thrown offThis is a clear example of "interpreting" the evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.In this experiment, the correct conclusion would have been to confirm the C14 dating through other, independent means: examining the geological strata it was extracted from, and using other radioisotopes for other radiological dating methods that overlap the age determined by the lab to confirm that the results were accurate. The unsupported assumptions I listed above should never have been made.This paper used a dating method that any scientist or even layperson familiar with the limitations of radiocarbon dating can see is completely flowed. Further, in the "conclusion," the paper explains away the fact that the C14 dating did not match with even a Flood date by making unsupported claims that the C14 content of the sample would have been altered by that Flood - without providing the mechanism by which this would happen, or even supporting the idea that the Flood happened.Their conclusion is only valid if you assume that the Young Earth/Creation/Flood model is correct, AND you ignore the sloppy methodology of teh experiment.This is not science, Kelly. This is apologetics - the practice of trying to support a pre-existing belief. It looks like science, but then, it's supposed to: it's a con game, intended to sucker in laypersons who don't have the scientific background to realize they've been had.Like you, Kelly.That's the reason this "paper" isn't published in the mainstream scientific literature: it's not science, and would never survive an honest peer review.

Ooooh, a Devil's Advocate! While I thank you for pointing out my error, the actual date of teh sample according to Kelly's paper (I believe they called it the "evolutionary" age, which made me chuckle) is orders of magnitude greater. 25,000 years vs 60,000 years is inconsequential when the actual age is in the millions of years. The point remains that the sample is too old to be accurately measured using C14 dating, and the "researchers" knew or should have known that basic fact when setting up this experiment. It was a sham.I'd strongly suggest that you read the remainder of the C14 article on Wikipedia, particularly the sections discussing Calibration and Measurement and Scales. Apparently Wikipedia also knows more about C14 dating than Kelly's Creation Scientists.Further, you've continued to make the assertion that the Earth is only about 6000 years old without supporting that assertion.More importantly and related to the topic, you've still failed to address the fact that the methodology used in the paper was one of apologetics, that of attempting to support a preconceived conclusion, and not an application fo the scientific method. The conclusions of the paper dismissed even their own results while attempting to handwave the discrepancy away with unsupported assertions of Floods and a young Earth and without and explanation of a mechanism that would account for such discrepancies even were the assertions factual. The conclusion did not follow from the evidence - the experiment was purposefully rigged to give an inaccurate reading by using the wrong tool, and then this "evidence" was "interpreted" to validate the conclusion that existed before the experiment was even conceived. Creation Science remains not science.