The Scientific Method For Beginners

A theory is a body of work, and to reach the status of being accepted as a theory it will have undergone considerable testing. It will not be junked just because of a small anomaly (and even then it would need to be shown that the anomaly was not just a freak event). Instead it will be adjusted to handle that anomaly if that is at all possible. In fact it won't be junked unless there is a clearly better alternative available.Even then it may hang on if it is useful.For instance we still teach Newtonian mechanics - and that theory is still widely used - even though it has been superseded by General Relativity. Being a good enough approximation for many situations - and easier to work with - has kept it alive.General Relativity itself has a severe problem - it cannot be fully reconciled with Quantum Mechanics. Yet it is still used - partly because there are many cases where the problems don't matter, but also because there is no replacement available (although scientists do try to work with possible replacement theories this work is mainly in evaluating those theories, rather than simply using them).An anomaly that has been solidly confirmed, and which cannot be accommodated by adjusting the theory will, at most, start scientists looking for a replacement for the theory. So long as the current theory is the best available it will continue to be used.

Well, let me weigh in.First, let me say that my original description of the scientific method was a framework. Let us by all means consider how various details of scientific practice and scientific progress fit in this framework, otherwise there would be nothing more to discuss.Now, about the revision of scientific concepts. If we replace one concept which has been successful with a more successful concept, one of the facts that our new idea has to explain is why the old idea was somewhat successful.Take, for example, Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. This is wrong: genes do not always assort independently. But they do if they're on different chromosomes. Advances in genetics didn't require us to simply dispose of Mendelian genetics: on the contrary, it allowed us to see why he was so nearly right.Even when an idea turns out to be fundamentally wrong, we are still obliged to explain why it convinced scientists that it was right. Why did naturalists once favor teleological explanations for morphology? Because, of course, the appearance of evolution is (superficially) like the appearance of design: for example, a well-adapted fish would be streamlined, and so would a well-designed fish: to this limited extent teleology and evolution make the same predictions. If the theory of evolution couldn't explain the former success of teleology as an explanatory framework and research program, then that would constitute a difficulty for the theory of evolution.

Dear Dr Adequate,I happened onto this string and had to respond. Forgive me for saying so; however, you are committing some of the same fallacies that many (on both sides of the discussion) are guilty of.Mainly, your lumping all creationist into one small box and because these few ridiculous argument are easily dismissed you think that the entire Creation argument should be summarily dismissed.The only real problem with that argument is that not all Creationists are giving these un-scientific (and sometimes plain dumb) reasons to not believe in Evolution.Secondly, (and again, both sides are guilty of this) many times we fail to define exactly what we are talking about. I’ll give you an example:A. I am a Creationist, I do not believe in Evolution. {General, Bland, Imprecise}B. I am an Old-Earth Creationist, I can see that the ‘Macro-Evolution Hypostasis’ does not fit the observations I have made in the world I see around me. {Precise, succinct, Clear-cut}As to your How do creationists live with the failure of their "scientific method"?(I) You are right that many (and I stress ‘Many’ —not all-) Creationists are only concerned with their dogma. However, I have seen the same with Naturalists. If we are to dismiss the Creationists because they defend their dogma at all costs then we should also dismiss the Evolutionists because many of them also defend their dogma at all costs.(II) I agree with what you say here, with two exceptions. A. again, not all Creationists do this. B. You presume that the Creation modal is wrong. In other words you start off saying ‘There is no God, therefore, there is no evidence for God’.I would like to close with this a question. Do you believe in the ‘Big Bang’?

I do not think that, and did not say so.It is true that creationists do not have a single unifying world-view besides the need to deny evolution. For this reason, their arguments, which are often mutually exclusive, need to be debunked piecemeal. ... besides the fact that I did not make it ... No, some of them use other dumb unscientific arguments.A similar diversity may be seen in 9/11 conspiracy theorists ("Truthers"). They know what they have to deny, but this gives them no unifying standard as to what they ought to assert. This is not precise, succinct, and clear-cut, because few creationists can decide what they mean by "macro-evolution" and those that can disagree with one another. Basically what a creationist means by "macro-evolution" is the amount of evolution in which he, personally, disbelieves. (Though there are exceptions to this, too.)And what you can mean by "hypostasis" in this context, I have no idea, and nor, I suspect, would anyone else. This also robs your statement of precision and the quality of being "clear-cut".One final ambiguity is that you speak of "observations I have made in the world around me". Now, since you are a creationist, it is not clear whether by this you are actually referring to observations that you have made in the world around you, or to dumb falsehoods that you have read in creationist pamphlets and websites. Evolutionists do not "defend their dogma at all costs", because talking rubbish is not a price that they have to pay. Believe me, I would be the very last person to attribute consistency of thought to the creationist movement. What you have written is, of course, completely untrue. Whatever possessed you to write it?Let us take this as an example of the sort of rubbish that you talk. Naturally. My reasons for doing so are, however, probably not on topic in this thread unless you mean this query to lead back into a discussion of the scientific method.P.S: Welcome to the forums.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Dear Dr Adequate,Thank you for welcoming me to ‘the forums’. I hope to prove to be an interesting challenge in our discussions; however, I do not want to mislead anyone; I have been a member for some time. I had to create a new account because someone hacked into my old one and changed my password and e-mail address. Sounds like you’re lumping All Creationist into one box to me. Even in your rebuttal your say: Unless I do not speak or read English as well as I thought I did; you just lumped all Creationists into the All Creationist use dumb unscientific arguments category with this one sentence. If they don’t use those dumb unscientific arguments then they use other dumb unscientific arguments.Even your Headline, Creationists Versus The Scientific Method, lumps all creationists into the All Creationist use dumb unscientific arguments category. (I.E. you’re saying that ‘Creationism’ is the antithesis of what the Scientific Method represents. Or, in other words, if you are a ‘Creationist’ you’re, by definition, ‘unscientific’.)Of Course this makes it easer (for you) to dismiss those of us that actually use the ‘Scientific Method’ to show the fallacies of Naturalism (Macro-Evolution).The really ironic thing is that I have yet to see ‘Evolutionist’ properly use the Scientific Method on any of the points I have made and proven me wrong. Actually I have had all of the people, who have doggedly argued against the things I have posted on these forums, either resorted to ‘name calling’ or what they ‘do’ or ‘do not’ believe to try rebutting my arguments; as I stated in the last paragraph. So, yes the Evolutionists I have dealt with have " defend their dogma at all costs". No logical argument, no scientific fact, no evince provided has swayed them. In response to my question: Do you believe in the ‘Big Bang’?So, you agree that the universe had a beginning? If so then I would ask you to take a few days and think of some of the ramifications of the universe having a beginning. Please, use the ‘Scientific Method’ to define conditions that must exist inside, and outside, of the universe if ‘in fact’ the universe has existed only for some 14+ billion years.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.

JRTjr should be the active alias, but as I type this he is shown as "No Name Available - unregistered".We have a glitch!!!I should have let Percy/Admin do the ID merger.Adminnemooseus

No, I have said quite clearly and explicitly that creationists are not consistent.I'll say it again. Creationists can't get their story straight.This is, of course, because they know what they need to deny --- but knowing that they need to deny the facts of biology gives them no clue as to what they should claim to be true. Now that is a generalization that I am prepared to make. I would be the last person in the world to claim that creationists are consistent -- however, I will freely admit that they're consistently wrong I find it very easy to "dismiss" the imaginary people who live in your head. What a strange lie. Tell me, did you really hope to deceive me by saying this? No. We don't have to tell stupid lies. I'm gonna guess that that's because no logical argument, no scientific fact, and no evidence has been presented to them. If your ravings on this thread are anything to go by. No. I am not going to spend "a few days" trying to guess what dumb mistake you want to make about the Big Bang.Just tell me what it is. On another thread. Evolution. So glad I could clear that up for you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have never seen you on this forum and I have been on here for over a year. I assure you if you present your argument against scientific theories and phenomena such as the biological evolution, the Big Bang, etc. we are not shy to present scientific evidence to back up these claims and demand the other side to do the same. Otherwise you are falling on your own double-edged sword.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

quote:

---

No, I have said quite clearly and explicitly that creationists are not consistent.

​

I'll say it again. Creationists can't get their story straight.

​

This is, of course, because they know what they need to deny --- but knowing that they need to deny the facts of biology gives them no clue as to what they should claim to be true.

---

Evolutionists can't get their story straight! from reading on this website and other discussions there are many varying views on precisely how everything happened including the beginning of life, beginning (or lack of beginning) of the universe, just to name some of the most obvious! A YEC can get their basic overall structure straight because it's written down for everyone to see, and has been on paper for thousands of years!
Your sentence could just as easily read:
Evolutionists can't get their story straight.This is, of course, because they know what they need to deny (i.e.God)--- but knowing that they need to deny the facts of biology gives them no clue as to what they should claim to be true.

Heh, that's rich. All of those have nothing to do with evolution. So I'd say evolutionists have a very consistent stance on them, namely, none at all. Yet they muck it up so terribly that it differs from creo to creo. It could, but that would be a lie. Except of course, they don't need to deny god. On this forum there are enpough that believe in a god, and still say evoltuion is correct. Including the site's owner/head admin, Percy. Evolution denying the facts of biology? That's rich.

---

I hunt for the truth

One of the things that puzzles me about people like you is this: you lie when you must know that you're going to get caught.You're not lying to a bunch of kids in Sunday school, when you might have a chance of getting away with it --- you are lying to people who, as you know perfectly well, are intimately familiar with the EvC debate. You cannot possibly have the faintest, slenderest hope that anyone reading your lies will be deceived by them.So what puzzles me is --- why do you bother? I can understand why someone might lie with the intention to deceive. That would be kind of the whole point of lying. But you lie when it is absolutely certain that the only effect that this will have on your audience is to convince them that you're a liar.As your lies are also off-topic, I should like to ask you not to mess up my thread with your pointless, hopeless, fatuous lies. Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Given that under most circumstances it isn't possible to tell the difference between lying and being mistaken, please give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi, Arphy.Welcome to EvC! True enough (from a certain perspective).The thing is that scientists aren't in it to tell a story. The Theory of Evolution is simply about the mechanisms that produce diversity, and you'll find that, although there are many different stories, all the stories are based on those mechanisms that we are uncovering.I happen to love reading the stories of evolution's history. But, these are not the basis of the Theory of Evolution: rather, ToE is the basis of these stories. So, our inability to agree with one another about the stories is not important in determining how well we understand the process.----- As has already been pointed out to you, these are not part of the Theory of Evolution. One thing that you should get used to is the concept that a scientific theory is not meant to define an entire philosophy or world view: it is only meant to explain a single set of related natural phenomena. Entire philosophies often do become attached to theories by some people, but don't confuse a philosophy (or a story) based on a theory with the theory itself.Evolution is only the change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection. Everything else is just something that you, or others, associate with "evolutionism." But, science doesn't work in terms of "-isms" the way religion does: it only works in terms of explanations for specific phenomena.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

ToE is the basis of these stories.

---

Yes!! I agree

quote:

---

Evolution is only the change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection.

---

see this is the thing I don't understand. This is a pretty standard definition of evolution on this forum (and in a sense I agree that the word can have that meaning), however this forum is not called: change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection vs Creation. If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed. In commen language when you mention the debate creation vs Evolution to someone the thought is (or should be if they have some knowledge of the history of the debate): Old universe and old earth where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today 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. yes, I know that there are many people who combine various parts of the two philosopies but basically these two philosophies are the main competitors. Are there really any creationists on this forum who believe that God directly creates each and every species? Please show me, as I have not seen or heard of any.