What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

It seems this question surfaces at least once a month and the answers tend to show some contrasting views and some even contain an element of duplicity.Scientific theory is tentative and should always be viewed as such until there is absolutely no reason to assume that there will ever be any fact that is irreconcilable. As William Dembski has duly noted, "No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by ideas that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word." Whether you find yourself in agreement with his views or not I think that point, if nothing else, stands supreme.I think if we were to truly simplify science we'd have to go back to its roots. The derivative of the word 'science' in Old English is usually rendered "scire," which literally means "to know." But even this lacks the understanding it deserves because I think we would all agree that every part of science has a pro tem value attached to it as it gathers more evidence to support any given hypothesis.I think it was RAZD that put it most eloquently, listed in an easy to follow, stepwise formula. Science is the study, testing, and observation of evidence. That, in and of itself, could mean a myriad of things with a definition of such brevity. Nontheless, that is the standard criteria foir science.Therefore, perhaps the real question, or more applicable one, doesn't ask what is science, but rather, what isn't?That being said, what are ther qualifiers or disqualifiers of creation theory, intelligent design, or evolution?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Questions 1 can be consolidated into question 2. Testability covers a gamut of questions because confirmation, predicability, and explanatory power will naturally fall within the criteria. Specified complexity alongside irreducible complexity in biology is what seperates intelligent design from any other theory. In this it uses "Darwins Wager" as a basis for its own case. For instance, if it could be shown that biological systems that are complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual process, then ID would be falsified on the grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. That would be sufficient to falsify ID.As far as its predictibility goes, it stands to reason that any biological system it looks at will prove that it could not possibly had derived from chance mutations and selections. ID claims to be telic, something far easier to detect on the 'bullshit radar' than what prognostications evolution can surmise.If you notice, evolution makes no real predictions, nothing that can be meted out with any semblance of veracity. The extent of evolution's predictions are, "things will change." That's hardly a prediction, especially when its adherents quip how obvious evolution is. However, if some scientist looking at the genome of any given organism made a prediction about its progenies morphology based on the progenitors current sequence, and based its argument on its probalistic chances due to its enviornment, or whathave you, then that would really be something a bit more praiseworthy. What? 85% of the theory is based on positive evidence. What do you think IC is about? If IC undermines what Darwin espoused in the process, so be it. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ideological viewpoints sometimes corrupt the integrity of any scientific or sociological endeavor. Sometimes this happens. Science needs to be reminded that it must leave out presuppositions and personal beliefs at the door. This kind of bias should be avoided at all costs.As for religous dogma, its unquestionable that religious views have corrupted the integrity of certain scientific tests. But 'dogma' need not only apply to the religious. One only has to look at Richard Dawkins to see that dogma is present in not only religious views, but alsoi in secular studies. The prevailing theory of macroevolution is held just as dogmatically as they charge with proponents of ID. That's why its up to the tests themselves to prove their predictions true without any added dogma involved.We should remember that dogma is a system of beliefs that can't be subject to scientific scrutiny or refutation without some facts supporting the asserion. Fact is soley dependent upon observations that can be repeated with a predictable outcome. Possible considerations and variables should be introduced and should be examined. So in that way, fantasy is well within the boundaries of reason. However, some fantasies have been hailed as some sort of unassailable fact, and its important that they be examined prior to their accreditation of "empirical science." Nothing wrong with that. Fair enough. Science is only equipped to answer question about the physical world. But what we see is the exclusion of anything beyond that, as its immediately ruled out of bounds as an a priori. That's hardly objective science. That' like trying to figure out the theorum of 2 + 2, only to exclude the number 4 as a consideration.Some criticism of creation science could reasonably be viewed with suspicion, but ID doesn't fall in that category. And indeed, the only real difference between ID and macroevolutionary biology is purpose and non-purpose. Proponents of ID feel that an irreducible complexity exists in nature and that its apparent, whereas those of a more secular persuasion believe that everything that happens, happens by some inexplicable reason due to some unforseen fortuitous anamoly.It may very well be a little of both. Why rule either of them out if we're going to be as objective as possible? I agree that going into great detail on the subject would be OT, but briefly explain your deductive process? Agreed. And that's what "Darwin's Wager" is all about. If you're suggesting that macroevolution is incapable of being falsified because peoiple can make up countless and erroneous rules to keep it propped up (see: Punk Eek), then it isn't falsifiable which pro-evolution groups claim for ID. So which is it? Unfortunately, the law of parsimony for something of this magnitude is difficult to quantify without some sort of filter-- which is why Dembsk's filter has made quite a stir within the scientific community. How about a third hypothesis?Hypothesis (3): A Higher Intelligence is responsible for a diverse range of life and the laws that bind physics. However, mutation and selection works not on a linear course, but randomly, but it is still inviolate of supplanting those laws. That's a fine prediction for a microadaptative process, and one that has stood up to scrutiny. It should also be abundantly clear that if if these microevolutionary advance were simply an extrapolation or magnification of a microadaptive process. And in 150 + years of dedicating searching, that question is still unanswered.Though your review was doubtfully meant to be technical, it was too simplified to answer any real questions about the pressures of selection or effects of genetic mutations. The way it seems to me, the matrix of probability for certain biological features with a limited number of variables to explore, make complex biological systems unlikely to appear under the conditions of either haphazard mutation or selection. Its purely within the realm of theoretical biology. Yet, it is considered, "science." Its outside of observation. That's the first disparity I see.The selection hypothesis does not adequately explain the evolution of certain critical features that are not functional without all its parts in place since the inception. I've heard a myriad of pleas to exonerate or to get around this conundrum, but its still present. Nor does it explain the development of advanced features before the need has arisen, such as why a reptile would ever find the selective pressure to evolve proto-wings. In other words, what was the mechanism that prompted this feature far in advance of any concievable relevance to its survival-- and how did it did not hinder the animal instead of enhance its survivability as it and its progenitors were going through these biological changes?So, how is it more scientific to follow an imagined evidentiary line-- a path that has yet to bear any real fruit?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Um, Richard Dawkins is the senior professor of evolutionary biology at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Oxford. He is tasked to teach "real science." Whether he does or not is a matter of debate because he's made it abundantly clear that he will not consider any other theory, which may be, at least in part, understandable. Afterall, it is a deeply ingrained faith and a strong dogma on which we are all raised from a tender age.The trend that distrubs me a bit is that the leading proponents of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. Its difficult to see how someone whose entire life reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it without some serious introspection. Nor would I expect his name or any other person to be specifically named in the text books. However, where do you think the information of the texts come from? Read the citations in the back of the book. It wouldn't be impossible to assume that Dawkins' research contributed to parts of the text. I think the fact that its been assumed true for so long that people accept on these grounds alone. If you haven't noticed, there has been a slow, but growing scientific exodus over the past 20 years. And as people are being introduced to other considerations, instead of being told what to believe, they can judge for themselves based upon the evidence presented by both sides and make an "informed decision"-- something that was never an option to them before recently. Macroevolutionary theory is absolutely theoretical, and has been for over 150 years. Parts of biology, astronomy, archeology, etc, are accredited by "direct observation." Upwards of 75% of evolutionary biology is purely theoretical, which, by definition, is non-scientific. It is within the realm of theoretical consideration just as ID. There are parts of evolutionary theory and parts of the design inference that are proven empirically, and parts, the largest portions, that are not.Because of this, perhaps we should remain tentative.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

..................................................

Observation and replication of the results is required of science that have to be reconcilable with other previously well-established fact. If a theory is rested upon half-truths without direct observation, then it is still theoretical no matter who's trying to convinve you otherwise. And that's fine to still consider the possibilities. The problem is calling something "fact" when its only theory.

quote:

---

If you haven't noticed, there has been a slow, but growing scientific exodus over the past 20 years.

---

The proof is in the pudding. The mere fact that this topic is so hotly debated is sufficient in showing us that a paradigm shift is in the works, just as a paradigm shift occured after Darwin published Origins. Creationists were taken seriously for a number of years. Though they had been debating pro-evolution groups for some time, it never got much airtime, (so-to-speak). It wasn't until Denton and Johnson came along that it began to really stir the pot. It was a revitilization of what Kuhn and Grasse stated long ago. Traite De Zoologie, by Pierre Grasse, did not recieve much attention when it was publiushed, nor did Kuhn's works. But critics of the theory were out there, just not en masse.You also have to take into conisderation that a very large portion of the populace doesn't really care about the issue. I would say that people into this debate are not of the vast preponderance. The point of mentioning that is their testimony concerning the debate may be slanted because they don't really understand the details.

quote:

---

A creationist in 1894: "It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration."

​

A creationist in 1922: "The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time."

​

A creationist in 1984: "Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."

---

What's the "myth" you are referring to that doesn't get any truer? Chapter 6 and 9 of the Origin of Species is replete with instances of Darwin's own inability to wrap his mind around certain inequalities that he noticed. The very questions he asked so many years ago are still unanswered. Of those who've attempted to hypothesize on possible scenarios give, at best, an ad hoc or pro tempore attempt to reconcile those difficult questions. Those theories about possible explanations have managed to creep in the textbooks and some even remained "factual" long after it had been refuted. Is that "science?" Is that scientific? There have been creationists much longer than 150 years. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Present some unambiguous transitional forms and we'll go from there.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

You'd have to first define what evolution is before you can answer that with any measure of truth. Parts of the theory are absolutely true. Others are unconfirmed. And that's putting it mildly.

quote:

---

The proof is in the pudding. The mere fact that this topic is so hotly debated is sufficient in showing us that a paradigm shift is in the works

---

Are you joking? What's the name of this very forum? This is just one example of the debate and its a small beachhead in a sea of controversy. It is hotly debated. Even if you don't agree with your opponents interpretations it doesn't detract from the fact that its a hot topic for a reason. Abandoned his creationist beliefs? He never was a creationist. That's why his detractors refer to him as an 'Anti-evolutionist.' They don't know how else to refer to them. And what are you?He's a retired professor of law at Berkley. He wrote his first book on Darwinism in 1990, which means he's been grinding at the mill long before his first book. Like him or despise him for his beliefs, Johnson did his homework. Some of them have defected. What was confirmed empirically is the existence of natural selection, isolation, and mutation acting upon a species that can cause new traits to develop and so arrive at a sub-specie. What it hasn't proven is that one specie or genus can arrive at another through these mechanisms. This part, which is obviously the bulk of the theory, has never been presented with empiricism.

quote:

---

Present some unambiguous transitional forms and we'll go from there.

---

How typical. Alright. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

All of his books stem from his interpretation of the scientific evidence. I hardly see how you would feel justified in arguing the point that he holds to his beliefs on it rather dogmatically. His atheism is interwined with evolutionary theory. Read the "Selfish Gene" for examples. I've never read anything from Bakker, but I'd willing to bet that if he's a creationist he seeks to marry his interpretation of evidence to his philosophical beliefs. Germs are no longer theoretical, Darwinian macroevolution is. That's the difference. No, not like that at all. But when I say that science is tentative, your Einstein/Newton analogy would be a good example. Then what is your objection to ID if this is its very ambition? I know. That's what I'm saying. It would surprise me very much not to find Dawkins name listed somewhere in the endnotes of any given biology textbook. Those are two books. There are hundreds of them. Furthermore, much of his work might be antiquated and new work stemming from his original thoughts have been revised. You don't get to be professor or emeritus professor of major universities without some embracing of the scientific community. Useless without specifics. Not really. And now that "Haldane's Dilemma" is addressing these issues, 7 decades may be all that has left. Junior and High school kids aren't under the general assumption that their teachers aren't knowledgeable of the cirriculum? Sometimes fantasy can become fact through the assumption that a theory was correct. Intellectual hucksters can smuggle in a ton of assertion under the guise of legitimacy so long as alot of accuracy is mingles in with fantasy. Case in point, Darwin and Mendel did us alot of good in understanding heredity. Much of what Darwin postulated was true, and in that way, the larger aspects that were hypothesized were put on the backburner. And every serious evolutionist knew of the problem in terms of hard evidence. Gould and Mayr have done more to elucidate this point better than any proponent of ID has because it comes from their own ilk. There is a stark difference between prediction and postdiction. There really aren't any true predictions that aren't fraught with ambiguous terms. It really becomes tantamount to "things change, therefore evolution is true." In essence, that doesn't predict anything. Modifications were introduced to accommodate the observations. The ToE is so malleable that virtually anything can fall into the criteria by making broad, blanket statements. (See: Punk Eek for details). What do you mean? Who are the defectors? Virtually every proponent of ID was once an evolutionist. Dean Kenyon, Colin Patterson, Walter Remine, etc I highly doubt that either of those things are increasing in popularity. If anything, it appears to diminishing ever since the X-Files was cancelled. I can't argue with you there. I don't know about that. Its probably about the same. The increase of Fundamentalism? You have it backwards. Its the increase of secularism. I'm not suggesting that evolution is not based on inference-- even good inferences. I'm suggesting that now that we have acquired a deeper sense of knowledge, the more obsolete the theory becomes. I had the image of atoms but the photo was annoyingly large so I deleted it. Not after Rutherford came along. No. Perhaps specific things about the Milky Way, but not the Milky Way itself. Your Wikipedia quote of 'theory' was perfectly fine. Evolution is a theory. We are in agreement. Well, as you know, good 'ol Ned Flanders would say, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNWR, : topic warning

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt