Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2219 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 138 (514129)
07-03-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
07-03-2009 10:43 PM


The creation "scientific" method
One common arrow in a cdesign proponentists's quiver is bringing forward some perceived flaw in the the ToE, or some perceived contradictory bit of evidence, as if it will bring the entire edifice tumbling to the ground. Almost invariably, the perceived problem is nonexistent...
Creation "science" begins with its conclusion and seeks to bend the evidence to support that conclusion--whether it fits or not. Creation "science" must ignore such evidence as can't be bent or misrepresented to fit the a priori belief they are seeking to support.
This is in stark contrast with real science, which goes where the evidence leads.
A couple of definitions which may help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Contrast this with creation "science"--here's an example, the Creation Research Society:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
  • The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
  • All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
  • The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
  • We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Source

In addition to the excellent discussions of the scientific method, above, it is illuminating to compare the scientific method with the exact opposite, creation "science."
Summary: Creation "science" starts with the conclusion and twists the data around until it fits, or ignores it if it can't be twisted far enough. Its nothing more than religious apologetics--the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 07-03-2009 10:43 PM subbie has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2219 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 138 (520783)
08-24-2009 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JRTjr
08-23-2009 4:06 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Then, using the ‘Scientific Method’, we can discus whether ‘Creationism’ is more likely or if ‘Macro-Evolution’ is. Is this not how we should discus these things? Not calling each other names, but, working together to come to some conclusions with input from all interested parties?
As I understand it, creationism starts with the absolute mandate that the bible is inerrant. Here is an example from the Creation Research Society:
CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

If you want, I have a lot more such statements of belief from other creationist organizations. This is about the shortest I have found.
Your task is to show how accepting these a priori religious beliefs is compatible with the scientific method, which requires that you follow the data wherever it leads.
I contend that these statements of belief are the exact opposite of the scientific method, the very antithesis of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JRTjr, posted 08-23-2009 4:06 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2219 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 138 (521099)
08-25-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
And your evidence for this is ?????
And would this belief follow from the religious notion of a "fall?" Or is this something you believe that is widely agreed-upon in scientific circles?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2219 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 138 (521105)
08-25-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
08-25-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
... VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood.
Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution.
RAZD, as you well know, diversification is adequately explained by natural means, without the need to insert various deities--for which there is no empirical evidence anyway.
And the global flood myth is consistently contradicted by the evidence. The huge number of tell-tale signs of such a flood some 4,350 years ago that have been found to be absent was enough to convince early creationist geologists seeking to document the flood that it was a myth nearly 200 years ago. Since then the case for a global flood in historic times has faded into incredulity to everyone but biblical literalists, who continue to make up the most fantastic tales to support their belief system. The fact that those tales ("what if" stories) make no sense, are internally contradictory, and are contradicted as well by immense amounts of scientific data makes no difference. Belief in a recent global flood is not altered by any amount of evidence.
That's why its not science. That's why creationism and creation "science" are inherently anti-science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 10:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024