quote:
And lost its standards when evolution rolled around.
How so?
Can you please briefly explain what the standards of science were like for, say, Reverend Segewick, Lyell and Galileo compared to when Lamarc and Darwin were proposing their competing theories?
quote:
Now science -- real science, true science -- is done in the service of this gigantic unprovable fairy tale.
Again, can you please explain what the tenets of "real, true science" are compared to what you say is perhaps "false science"?
In particular, I am interested in knowing how the "pre-" and "post-evolution" sets of scientific tenets have affected the reliability of results.
For example, are double blind experiments less reliable now than before Darwin?
quote:
You can't "figure out" that something *didn't* happen,
Schraf.
Sure you can. At least, for all practical purposes, in the real world, we can ignore the fantastical and magical silliness.
What do you think forensics is all about?
It's about eliminating the unlikely and impossible until all you are left with is the probable and the possible.
quote:
Certainly not when what happened looks like it might be very different from what is now happening, which both evolutionism and creationism believe.
Not sure what you mean, but everything that happens leaves evidence, Faith. Certainly a worldwide flood would have left evidence. Of course, you can invoke all sorts of magic to explain why the natural history of Earth doesn't look anything like what is recounted in Genesis, but then we have left reality and science and entered religious post-hoc reasoning, AKA apologetics.
quote:
All the most plausible scientific reasoning cannot PROVE or DISPROVE something occurred or didn't occur a certain way in the past.
Science can't prove anything.
But, if you mean that science cannot show a greater or lesser probability of something having happened, then you are dead wrong.
That, along with constructing explanitory frameworks to describe how these events occur in concert to produce phenomena, is the essence of science.
quote:
All that's happened is that somebody came up with a very plausible argument.
...that is supported by 150 years of making millions of specific predictions which have been borne out with a very high degree of accuracy.
This isn't just a semantic argument, Faith. There is real physical evidence to support the ToE, as much as you would like to ignore it.
quote:
I've said this a million times but in answer I'm snowed under by all the "proofs" people then trot out to prove me wrong, as if extrapolations from observable geological conditions, or mathematical calculations about the effects of meteors could actually prove something true or false THAT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO REPLICATION and TESTING.
Sure it can.
Observations can be and are replicated all the time.
Thousands and thousands of different Geologists over the last 200 years observe that the Jurassic geologic layer is always found below the Cretatious and above the Triassic. With very few exceptions, (which are understood) this pattern is NEVER seen deviate.
Each scientist who, yet again, observes this ordering of the layers confirms the hypothesis that the Geologic Column describes the history of past geologic activity on Earth.
quote:
The point is that if hypotheses always need correcting when there is the real opportunity of testing them and correcting them, how on earth do scientists get away with declaring something proved that happened in the past that has absolutely NO way of being tested and corrected, validated or falsified?
Do you reject all forensics?
quote:
There is no such thing as a falsifiable hypothesis about the PAST.
Huh?
So, I can't make a retrodiction about what I might find in a fossil layer if evolution is true?
Hypothesis: If evolution is correct, we will find less complex life in the lowest geologic layers and more complex life in the higher layers.
Confirmation: We do, indeed, find more complex life in higher layers and less complex life in lower layers.
Potential Falsification: If evolution were not true, then there would be no reason to see complex life only in the higher layers and not in lower layers.
quote:
The best you can come up with is a MORE PLAUSIBLE explanation for something than some other explanation, but you CAN'T PROVE IT
Welcome to science.
We can't PROVE anything. There are no certainties, only statistical probabilities. We can't PROVE that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, but we can predict with a very high probability that it will.
We can't PROVE that a dropped pencil will fall to the floor, but we can predict with a very high probability that it will.
We can't PROVE that allele frequencies in populations change over time, but we can predict with a very high probability that they have, and do.
quote:
Creationists have come up with a very reasonable hypothesis about how the geological column was formed,
It isn't reasonable. It's a very poor hypothesis that ignores much of the evidence.
quote:
but evolutionists use their own plausibilities to shoot them down,
No, we use evidence found in nature to shoot it down. Reality shoots it down.
quote:
calling their own plausibilities science and the creationists' something else.
Science is evidence based. Creation science is revelation based. Science begins with all of the evidence and formulates explanations using ALL of the vidence.
Creationists start with their desired conclusion and cherry pick the evidence that supports this pre-conceived conclusion and ignore or twist any evidence that is inconvenient.
That's why they can't be said to do science.
quote:
But on both sides all that is possible is plausibilities and the ones with the loudest credentials win. I admit that's a bit of a caricature but only a bit.
Really? Then how was this
middle school girl able to get her scientific study published in JAMA if it's all about the credentials?
She had no credentials. What she did have, though, is a great experiment and excellent methodology.
quote:
But "science-illiterate?" With all the science programs on TV? It can't be because the information isn't available.
Most of the science programming on TV is pretty bad. Although I am happy to see that there are shows like Penn and Tellers
Bullshit! and
Mythbusters starting to come about.
To close, I'll just say that I am not in favor of restricting anyone's right to make a speech. The antidote to stupid or wrong speech is always more speech, not less.
It is the very obvious goal of the Creationist movement, however, to get their religion taught in public school classrooms, and to gut the Biology curriculum of all of it's real science.
I find that to be incredibly dangerous for our future as a free industrialized nation that is increasingly dependent upon sophisticated technology that fewer and fewer of us understand.
™ Version 4.2