What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Another moderator seems to be taking an interest, so I'll stop moderating and begin participating as Percy.This thread was proposed because of the creationist assertion, "My religion's beliefs are scientifically accurate."When this assertion is examined through investigation of the scientific support for such things as a young earth and a global flood there often follows a second assertion: "Creationists use a different definition of science."Until there is agreement about the nature of science there is no common basis for discussion of this thread's topic. In the hope that it will help discussion move forward, here is how scientists view science.These are its qualities:

• It applies to the natural world. This means it is limited to that which is apparent to the human senses like sight and hearing.
  ​
• It is replicable, meaning that the same experiment or observation under the same conditions will always come out the same for everyone everywhere.
  ​
• It is inductive in that it generalizes from the specific, and it can therefore be used to make predictions about not yet observed phenomena.
  ​
• It is falsifiable in that it is possible for evidence to exist that would contradict its views.

Science also has a process that is more or less followed. The path taken by original trailblazers is often chaotic, but once the path is blazed then it can be followed in a more or less straightforward fashion. The process has been described many times, but very briefly, here it is again:

1. Observe a phenomenon.
   ​
2. Form a hypothesis related to that phenomenon.
   ​
3. Develop predictions that derive from the hypothesis.
   ​
4. Perform tests of the predictions in order to confirm or falsify the hypothesis.
   ​
5. Based upon the results of those tests, either discard the hypothesis as falsified, or return to step 2 and reformulate the hypothesis, or consider the hypothesis confirmed.
   ​
6. The hypothesis is considered confirmed when it passes all the tests that have been developed for it. The hypothesis can continue to be challenged forever, but hypotheses that have stood up to many challenges are usually recognized as theories. Possession of status as theory does not protect a hypothesis from being challenged, but given the rigorous process to which it has already been subjected it does raise the bar for challenges.

The science that is taught in public school science classrooms has the listed qualities and develops from more or less following the outlined methodology. To join evolution in the classroom, creationism must either fulfill these accepted criteria of science, or it must convince scientists of a different approach to science.Any creationists who accepts the above definition of science must provide examples of creationist research following this approach. That has not yet been done in this thread, and that's because creationists do not follow this process, and it's also why creationism is not taught in school.Any creationists who reject the above definition of science must provide an alternative and equally clear definition, and provide examples of creationist research that not only follows that definition, but has also provided results that have advanced the state of the art. In other words, they have to demonstrate that they have a process that provides legitimate scientific results. Confirming Christian faith in Bible stories is not considered a legitimate scientific result.PaulK has just posted about lake varves, radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology. The answers we'll get will be the ones we always see:

• Without any evidence, it will be declared that conditions were different then with hundreds of "seasons" taking place in a single year.
  ​
• Without any evidence, radiocarbon dating will be dismissed.
  ​
• Without any argumentation, the near impossibility of multiple independent dating methods agreeing will be dismissed.

Reaching conclusions without evidence or rational argument is the hallmark of nonsense. Because creationists reach their conclusions in this way, whatever it is they're practicing IS NOT science.--Percy

This thread is discussing what is and isn't science, and Buzsaw has provided us the example of Chris Miller, a geologist performing biology experiments in his basement. I'll now explain why what Chris Miller is doing is not science.Approaching something in a scientific manner is not the same thing as doing science. As others have already pointed out, Chris Miller's experiments, at least as described by Buzsaw, can never settle the issue he's set out to decide, but that's not why it isn't science. Even poorly conceived experiments can be science, though their contribution is more in the realm of showing what not to do.Chris Miller isn't doing science because his experimental results will never be placed before other scientists for review and replication. Chris can perform his experiments and talk about them before church groups for years and years, but his results will never become part of the fabric of science until they are validated by other scientists who by reading his papers are able to replicate his experiments and obtain the same results.Even if Chris does eventually go to the trouble of writing up his results in a technical paper and submitting it to a legitimate scientific journal, it would be rejected out of hand. It would never even reach the peer review stage. The first editor to see it would toss it out after only reading the abstract because the poor experimental design and the lack of any scientific framework surrounding the hypothesis would be all too readily apparent.This last issue is another key reason why what Chris is doing isn't science. Any trained scientist would quickly recognize that Chris's results, no matter what they turned out to be, could not be valid science because Chris was not hypothesizing about observed phenomena. He was hypothesizing based upon his own personal beliefs. Even worse, he doesn't seem to understand the theory of evolution that he's attempting to falsify, and he seems ignorant of the large body of research demonstrating the process of evolution. The only thing Chris really has going for him is a ready and attentive audience in the fundamentalist community.Interestingly, Chris is wrong even by creationist standards (and if Buzsaw's characterization is accurate, he apparently has the same misunderstanding of ID that Buzsaw has). But Chris seems to have forgotten that creationists do not deny speciation. Creationists readily admit speciation, a change from one species to another. What creationists deny is change from one kind to another. Chris's guppies will never become another species in his lifetime, any evolutionist could tell him that, but even if speciation did occur creationists would just point out that the new guppy species was still a member of the guppy kind - it was still just a guppy.In other words, Buz, you are giving credence to someone who not only doesn't understand evolution, but who doesn't even understand creationism.AbE: And this allows us to transition from why Chris Miller isn't doing science to why creationism in general does not do science. Because creationism does not possess the scientific qualities of review and replication, creation scientists can come in all different kinds of contradictory stripes and colors, as long as they're against evolution. They can never make progress toward any single viewpoint because they are united by religious perspective and by what they're against, instead of by a shared commitment to objectively follow and interpret the evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, plus a small amount of additional material at the end.

Usually people are judged by their body of work. You're offering Chris Miller as an example of a creationist performing legitimate science, and then when people ask about his body of work you're putting them off. Either you've seen Chris Miller's body of work and have judged it good science and are prepared to argue in an informed manner about the quality of his work, or you're not. Don't go accusing people of making "judgemental assumptions" when all they're doing is asking the exact right questions.The key issue here is, on what basis are you judging Chris Miller's work to be legitimate science. What if you had a guy in a track suit speak at your church about how he could outrun all the fastest track stars in the world. Would you believe him? Or would you want to see him in a race, or at least see articles about races he'd won? You'd want to see evidence, right?So what evidence do you have that you can make available to us here at EvC Forum that Chris Miller is a creationist doing legitimate scientific research into creationism? What papers has he written? What contributions has he made to his science? What are his accomplishments? What are the details of the science he is conducting? Where is his data published so it can inspected? What other scientists have replicated his results? How frequently are his papers cited by other scientists?Don't bother answering, it's already well apparent you have none of this information. Someone gave a talk at your church, and you liked what he said. It is now well past time to forget Chris Miller. Please do everyone a favor and don't post again until you can post on-topic about something in creationism that you believe is legitimate scientific research and that there is information about that can be obtained on the web. I suggest that you try ICR. Andrew Snelling's and Steven Austin's papers would make good candidates.--Percy

I agree with you. I didn't call his approach unscientific. In the paragraph just prior to the one you quoted I said, "Approaching something in a scientific manner is not the same thing as doing science."Science is a collective activity. Individuals and teams can perform scientific experiments, but they cannot do science by themselves because of the requirement of replication.Many essential qualities derive from the simple requirement of replication. Objectivity springs from distributing the assessment of scientific results among many individuals with all their unique backgrounds, biases and perspectives. Confidence in scientific theories derives from the resulting consensus, and the consensus serves as a foundation for future research.Because creationism is not doing science they have no shared perspective, no consensus, and no cohesive theory. Nor are they making any progress in these areas. This is because their goal is not to do science. Science is not what interests them. Whatever you want to call what they do, they do it out of the perceived scientific threat to their religious beliefs.The primary philosophical difference between creationists and true scientists is that creationists are certain they are right, while scientists are certain they may be wrong.We cannot use Chris Miller as an example of creationist research because, other than Buzsaw, there is no source of information about his work.--Percy

You and Holmes are wrong. Please read my immediately previous Message 201 which explains this clearly. If you'd like more detail you can reread my earlier posts, Message 181 and Message 182.Please move on from Chris Miller. There is no information about him anywhere. I suggest you seek examples of creationist research at ICR. CRS is another possibility.--Percy

Hi Buz,Please stop using the Chris Miller example. Other than you, there is no source of information about his work. Not in this thread you haven't. Yes, we know. You keep repeating this, but this thread represents your opportunity to provide suppporting evidence and argument for your viewpoint. Repetition of your starting premise doesn't accomplish this. If this were a race then you'd be running in place at the starting gate. And for that you need to offer examples of their science for consideration. You were on the right track with Chris Miller, but as I keep saying, you can't use him because there's no source of information about his work. I again suggest you use examples from ICR and CRS. Yes, Buz, we know. You keep saying this. But you ignored almost all my detailed characterization of science in Message 144. You can't ignore the particulars of rebuttals and just keep reiterating your position. In addition, your views that the scientific establishment is systematically excluding the creationist approach to science is not the topic of this thread. It no big deal to mention this in passing, but you shouldn't keep repeating it. If you'd like to discuss it then open a new thread.--Percy

This is not on-topic.--Percy

It suddenly occurs to me that there may be different interpretations about the topic of this thread.I'm assuming that this thread is about the process of the science, from hypothesis through experiment and on to replication and theory.I'm wondering if some people view this thread as examining what constitutes a valid scientific experiment, which is much more limited.If I'm discussing the wrong topic someone please let me know.--Percy

Hi Holmes,I'm not going to reply in any detail because I think you're primarily seeking clarification of the boundaries of the definition. If that becomes germane to an example of science in this particular thread then I'll gladly get into it, but right now I won't be spending any time clarifying at just what point science becomes no longer science. Just at what exact particular point the bay becomes ocean may be a point of debate, but it doesn't mean that bay and ocean don't have clear definitions. Science, indeed all terminology, has the same issues with boundaries, but science does have a clear and definite definition.Yes, my view is traditional scientific philosophy, but it's a very complex topic so I'm of course simplifying. One can do the same thing to scientific philosophy that creationists do to evolution by pointing to internal controversies to imply that the science is hopelessly confused and useless, but naturally that's a misrepresentation.We can't use an example of science where the only source of information about it is one of the participants in the discussion.--Percy

It sounds like we're as much in agreement as people usually get on this issue. For example, while I can't agree with this, I can see why you might think so: I think it does, but even for those who see much ambiguity, as far as creationism goes, there is no significant variant of scientific philosophy into which it fits. Science is like Christianity - sure there are lots of different ways of philosophizing about it, but it has a fundamental core set of criteria that creationism simply does not meet. It has nothing to do with you but with me. While wandering through the valley of project hell I accidentally entered both phone menu hell (3 hours with Dell, 1 hour with Maxtor) and computer hell ("hang 10" is my new PC's middle name, the units of the integer is times/hour). My main computer is running a disk diagnostic right now that should take 24 hours because Maxtor is such a wonderful company. I'm a little distracted and a lot short of time.--Percy

Hi Buz,The creationist approach to science copies an approach common to religion where it frequently happens that one group, dissatisfied with some or another aspects, breaks off from another to form their own church. Fundamentalist Christians, their beliefs threatened by modern science, have created their own organizations and journals, convened their own conferences, written their own papers, and then they simply called it science.It doesn't and it can't work that way. Science by its very nature is as grounded in objective reality as it is possible for human endeavor to achieve. There are not multiple objective realities the way there are many religions. There is only one objective reality, and science is engaged in understanding that reality as best it can.Conflicting interpretations of evidence can legitimately exist within science, and it happens all the time, but creationism is not one of these legitimate alternate interpretations. This is because during the "gathering of evidence" stage, which includes making oneself aware of existing evidence, creationism is most notable for the evidence it ignores. By ignoring inconvenient evidence creationism cuts itself off from the very universe it is supposed to be studying, and that is why creationism is not science.A more significant reason for why creationism is not science is because creationism is not interested in resolving its differences with true science. It is not interested in building a consensus. It is not interested in participating in the collective activity of science to build a greater understanding of our universe. If they were interested in these things then they would be pounding on the doors of science with their evidence and demanding to let in through the process of submitting their research in the form of technical papers to journals and conferences. And if their views had any merit then they would be making discoveries and finding insights that true science is missing, and scientists would be beating their own paths to the creationist door.But none of this is happening because the creationist goals are religious and theological, not scientific. From the creationist perspective the value of science is to lend support to religious belief in the Bible, not to reach a greater understanding of our universe. This motivation is what leads them to ignore evidence, probably the simplest and most obvious mistake in science.Perhaps the most damning indication of creationism's non-science nature is the answer to the question, "If the Bible and its stories did not exist, would anyone have ever thought that world geology derived from a world-wide flood a few thousand years ago?" The answer is, of course, no, because no real-world evidence for such an event exists.Creationism versus evolution is not a case of differing scientific interpretations based upon evidence, which is what you keep claiming. Why don't you go ahead and suggest an example of research from ICR and we'll make clear precisely which evidence they're ignoring and identify any other violations of scientific criteria. This will help address the question raised by this topic's title that asks what is and is not science.--Percy

Hi Buz,I really can't say it any better than Straggler and Dr Adequate already have. Science does not start with a hypothesis from which it draws conclusions. Science begins with evidence drawn from observation and experiment, and from these hypotheses are formed which further observation and experiment either confirm, deny or suggest modification. The foundation of science is evidence, not hypothesis.Creationism begins with a hypothesis which is not founded upon evidence, and which in fact ignores evidence. Though you deny doing this, it is precisely what you describe when you say things like, "Our hypothesis is a ww flood effecting disastrous tetonic movement, volcanoes, upheavel of mountain ranges, sinking of ocean floors, Mt St Hellens kind of cutting canyons, et al." Your conclusions follow from your hypotheses, when it should your hypotheses that flow from the evidence you gather.I again suggest you begin with an example of scientific research drawn from ICR or CRS. We can't use any example for which you're the sole source of information, such as Chris Miller or the arctic example. Please choose a paper from ICR or CRS that we can all see and read and reference and we will then point out what evidence is being ignored and any scientific criteria that are not being met.--Percy

Hi Buz,The answer to your question was contained in the passage you quoted: This phenomenon under study is known through evidence from prior observations and/or experiments. Science begins with evidence, not hypothesis. Without evidence of a phenomenon there is nothing to hypothesize about.Creationism isn't science because it does not begin with evidence but with revelation, in this case revelation from the Bible that the world is young and modern geology is a result of a great flood several thousand years ago.The Steve Austin work you found discussed at TalkOrigins is an example of misapplying scientific analysis and misinterpreting scientific results. Creationists who don't understand sedimentology or isochron dating will be easily convinced that Austin is correct and that radiometric dating is unreliable, or at worst that this is an example of scientific disagreement. But to those who do understand these things it is more than clear that Steve Austin is either incompetent or purposefully misconducting scientific analysis of layer ages. The explanations for why this is so have already been made in the earlier replies to you, but if they aren't sufficiently clear or detailed we can provide more elaboration.At its core the reason Steven Austin is wrong is still lack of connection to real evidence, but the reason for it is less obvious. He has all the evidence before him, he just screws up the analysis. Ignoring the proper methodologies for geologic and radiometric analysis and interpretation will produce produce similar results to ignoring evidence.Next time I find a free moment I'll visit the ICR website myself and find a representative paper in which the lack of connection to scientific evidence is more apparent.--Percy

Actually, that's a very rational response. Scientific hypotheses are built upon evidence, not revelation. Since creationism's revelatory base means it is not and cannot be science, there really can be nothing resembling a legitimate debate. At heart, much creation/evolution debate is simply one side trying to make clear to the other what science really is.--Percy

Well said. And there's an inherent contradiction in their position where they want to be classified as science while satisfying few of the requirements of science. They've created the external trappings of science with their journals and conferences and websites, but they rarely actually *do* science.This thread is too near the end to actually begin a detailed examination of an example of creationist research, but I still think it would be a good idea. Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying a good candidate. I'll try to get over to ICR when I find a free hour.--Percy