Creation science II

Hello, Kelly.I can't remember if we've communicated directly or not yet. If not, welcome to EvC!I realize you've got a lot of people after you right now, and I don't really want to increase your work load, but I'd like the chance to comment, after reading most of the threads you've participated in so far. You've no doubt noticed the high quantity of outrage that this statement has caused from your debate rivals, so I won't add any of my own ridicule to the mix. Just know that I disagree with you. I’ll spare you my personal feelings on the matter.Instead, I would like to touch a bit on the reasons why your message isn’t getting through. The basic reason is that creation science typically only defines things on a superficial basis. But, science simply cannot make any progress without defining in detail, and, often, splitting hairs in the layman’s eyes.For example, I’d like to pull a quote from the previous thread: Was this created? is not a scientific question. Did this evolve? is also not a scientific question. This is because science is not structured to answer questions like these. Science is not a simple factoid-generator. You can walk outside and gather all the factoids you want without resorting to science: Do cows eat corn? All you need is to see a cow eat corn, and you’ve got your factoid. And, no science need be involved.Science is used for something more than that: it’s used to explain factoids, not produce them. Was this created?, Did this evolve? and Do cows eat corn? are boring and trivial questions: once they are answered, the very next question is, So what? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? And that is the type of question that science is structured to answer.Within the scientific community, the term science is exclusively used to describe efforts to dissect natural processes and recreate them in the form of theories, models or equations. Superficial explanations and trivia about the natural world simply are not science.So, instead of asking, was X created?, creation scientists (if they truly were scientists) would be asking, How was X created?That's why evolutionists want to know whether you're espousing a biblical explanation, or something else: because, without an explanation or a mechanism, you can't claim that you're doing science. Creationists insist that they don't have to answer the question. But, curiously enough, that is the only question that would make creationism into science.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Kelly. I'm confused by this statement. As an evolutionary biologist, I spend a large portion of my time trying to figure out the "how" of evolution in the vertical sense. I particularly study the way spiders develop dietary specializations to improve their metabolic efficiency and minimize competitive interactions between species, which ultimately drives the entire spider community toward higher diversity and productivity.At any rate, my point was precisely what you just said: creationists are not trying to figure out the "how" of creation, but my colleagues and I in the field of evolutionary biology are.Since the term science is used by the scientific community to refer to any effort to figure out the how of natural processes, by your own admission, creation science does not fit the scientific definition of science. What creation scientists are doing is not, in any meaningful way, comparable to what I am doing, in terms of methodology, approach, rigor or logic.-----Imagine a scientist announcing his big research findings to the public in a press release (these are really big findings). In his press release, he says, I found that a process is involved in the conduction of electrons down a copper wire.Wouldn’t you naturally want to ask him, What process is that?
What if he refused to specify the process?
Wouldn’t you conclude that he has nothing noteworthy to say, and wouldn’t you feel just a little bit annoyed by this idiot?But, look what you wrote about creation science: My next question for you is, What processes are you referring to?What if you refuse to specify the processes?
Wouldn’t I be well within my rights to conclude that you have nothing noteworthy to say, and wouldn’t I be justified in feeling just a little bit annoyed by you?
In fact, isn’t this pretty much exactly how everybody you’ve communicated with here has responded to you so far?Although I typically prefer to avoid stinging, pointed arguments, I can’t help but feel that these people are justified in their exasperation. To them, you just sound like some idiot saying, A process was involved.Why should they listen to your unspecified idea?
And why should they let you publish, A process was involved in a scientific journal?Edited by Bluejay, : Plural.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Kelly. So, when I was getting ready to go to grad school, I applied to four schools. In one school, nobody wanted me in their lab, so I halted the application procedure early on. In another school, somebody wanted me in his lab, but, due to timing issues related to his funding, we missed some deadlines in the application procedure, and that fell through.Finally, I narrowed it down to two schools, both of which ultimately offered me a position. I selected the school that had a more interesting research project in line, more money, and more opportunities to attend conferences and other events.Do you know what I just did?I just told you a true, meaningful (if perhaps a bit dull) story without once referring to the circumstances of my birth.In the same way, I can tell you a true, meaningful story about how tetrapods evolved from fish without once referring to the origin of all life on earth. Likewise, I can tell you a true, meaningful story about how spiders adapt to their environment without once referring to the origin of all life on earth.Can you do the same with creation science?You cannot. Therefore, your story must incorporate the beginning. Evolution does not experience this constraint.Sorry.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.