What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

No matter how you dress it up or what archaic definition of science you manage to track down -Concluding a "fact" from the bible or any other uncorroborated written account and then setting out to "prove" it by picking and choosing compatible physical evidence and rejecting or ignoring incomaptible physical evidence is the very antithesis of science in every conceivable way.The posters on this forum know it, anybody undertaking any form of real science knows it and frankly all but the most blinkered creationists know it too.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I will use the example of flood Vs conventional geology but am aware that the thread is "What is science and what is not science?". The points apply to any rival theories.I think the error that is being made here is that you are effectively asking the currently established theory (conventional geology for example) to take account of an opposing INTERPRETATION (e.g.Flood geology) of the same evidence rather than finding any actual new evidence that opposes the established and independently corroborated theory.IF there were new evidence predicted as a direct result of flood theory and consequently discovered by flood gelogists that opposed the expectations of, or could not be adequately explained by, conventional geology then this would warrant the sort of respect and investigation you seem to be suggesting flood geology deserves of the mainstream.However in the absence of any new evidence it is up to the flood geologists to demonstrate that their interpretation of the physical evidence at hand is equal or superior to the established interpertation/theory.This is done by effectively trying to falsify your theory by making logical predictions as to the consequences of your theory and then looking for new evidence that will either verify or refute the conclusions of the theory in question. If predictions are consistently verified by physical evidence in the form of discoveries or experiments and these can be repeated/verified by others working in the field then you may be onto something!
If in addition the wider conclusions of your theory (e.g. the age of the Earth for example) can be corroborated by other completely seperate buy equally tested and verified theories (e.g. radiometric testing) then you have a full blown scientific theory with a body of evidence on which it is based.As far as I am aware "creationist scientists" have only ever offered alternative interpretations to existing evidence with no deduction of logical consequences, prediction or falsification to speak of.
All established scientific theories have undergone this process and repeatedly passed the test .Until creationists can demonstrate that the logical consequences of their theories result in the discovery of new evidence that contradicts the established theory or have a body of tested, verified and independently corroborated evidence that rivals the established theory, there is absolutely no reason to take their interpretations seriously.

This is fundamentally wrong. You are just not equating like for like.
You are mixing the CONCLUSIONS of science with the HYPOTHESES of creationism. You are assuming that scientists are effectively working in the same way as creationists when in fact they are not.The creationist hypothesis (using the specific example of flood geology again) is that the Earth is only several thousand years old and that many geological phenomenon can be exlplained in terms of rapid flow dynamics (i.e. flooding).
Creationists then interperet the various geological phenomenon in reference to that hypothesis.The EQUIVELENT position would be that conventional geologists hypothesised that the Earth was billions rather than thousands of years old and then interpreted the evidence for geological phenomenon purely on that basis.
If this were indeed the case everything you say regads creationist flood geology being equally valid would be at least somewhat true.HOWEVER this is just not the case.The CONCLUSION (not the hypothesis!) that the Earth and it's geological structures were formed over billions of years is the result of verifying numerous smaller and more detailed hypotheses regarding erosion, forces, pressure, motion etc. etc. all founded in well established laws of physics and chemistry. Only once this CONCLUSION had been drawn regarding the age of the Earth was the age of the Earth as billions of years old used as the basis for other hypotheses all of which consistently verified the original conclusion.There are many physical reasons to conclude that the Earth is billions of years old. Further hypotheses assuming that fact have then been repeatedly verified by prediction and discovery.There is absolutely no physical reason to think that the Earth is only thousands of years old and that a worldwide flood occurred. Any interpretation of physical evidence based on that hypotheses has little more validity than the original asumption which has no validity at all.If we were to follow the creationist method we would have to accept any old hypothesis plucked randomly out of the air as equal to an established conclusion as long as the asumption in question COULD conceivably explain the physical evidence in some way. This is obviously nonsense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you really suggesting that the laws of physics relating to force, pressure, viscosity and motion as well as those governing chemical interaction at the atomic level have changed since your proposed great flood? Because it is on the basis of those that the original hypothesese were made. If you regard that as uniformitarianism then I suppose so but I would be very interested to hear how and on what basis you think these fundamental concepts were different in any way previously to your flood? No.
1) The hypothesis is not based on any physical evidence or any logically concluded theoretical basis.
2) The hypothesis itself is either so broad (there was a huge flood) or negative regards an alternate theory rather than positive concerning it's own conclusions (a particular dating technique is wrong) that it is virtually useless as a means of investigation.
3) The evidence used to "verify" the hypothesis is selective in the sense that it only puts forward that which fits (e.g. you have mentioned sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon but the U turn shape of the canyon itself as well as tributaries of equal depth at right angles to the main canyon are difficult to explain by rapid flow dynamics and are therefore ignored in your assertions)
4) No verifiable predictions regards future data have been made based on the logical conclusions of the hypothesis. It has only been used to explain already known phenomenon. It is very easy to make a theory fit known facts but extremely difficult for new facts to verify hypotheses made previously. This is why prediction rather than mere explanation is held in such hugh esteem as a key component of the scientific method.
5) There are no clear or stated means by which the hypothesis can be refuted.
6) There is no seperate and independant body of knowledge that can corroborate or substantiate the overriding assumption of your hypothesis.The methodology you are advocating falls down at every step of any hypothesis based method that could be called scientific.You have said previously that the hypothesis is the beginning of any scientific investigation. For the reasons explained in my last post I do not think that is true. However even in your own terms "creationist science" leaves a lot to be desired. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think the fact that the debate has got to this point indirectly sums up why the creationist position cannot be considered science.Buz has put forward examples of creationist research.
The rest of us have pointed out how these examples fail to meet the requirements of scientific research by explaining (in some detail) the methods and foundations of scientific thinking and endevour as we believe them to be.
Buz has then become frustrated because we are unfairly analysing and evaluating his examples on these very restrictive terms. The terms that we have defined to support our argument.If this were the whole story I would have a lot of symapthy for Buz's position of frustrated indignance.However this fails to appreciate that the definitions and terms we have put forward to support our arguments against creationist research being considered science have not been defined in the context of this debate. Nor have they been arbitarily defined in order to exclude creationists, astrologists, psychics or anyone else.The methodology of science is what makes science what it is.The fact is that ALL the conclusions and theories of ALL mainstream science have been (or are being) evaluated on exactly these terms using exactly these methods.The very fact that creationists consider it unrealistic and unfair to evaluate their claims on these terms is the best example of why creationist research cannot be be considered science in the first place.There seems little point in further analysing specific examples of creationist research while the two sides of the debate are effectively talking different languages. Whilst I agree with Holmes that there is much to learn from rebuttal and that such activity is far from a waste of time, I would also agree with Buz, even if only to concur that this thread has probably run it's course.

Well I do admire your optimism (and greatly appreciate your nomination)
I think it unlikely that, having defined fairly thoroughly what science is, many creationists will step forwards to test their theories against these criteria.
More likely they will take Buz's general view that the rules have been set unfairly against them by the opposition with no real appreciation that it is this that is at the very heart of the problem.The rules of science ARE against their methods and means of research. However it is these same "rules" that define what science is and what have made it so effective and successful in terms of practical results.Maybe I am just being overly pessimistic............One last thought (unless there are a flood of creationists queuing up to test their theories against the criteria in this thread?) - It really did seem much more difficult to define what science actually is than I think most of us anticipated. It is much easier to explain what is not science than to formally define what science is in any exact way. Is sociology science? Is psychology? Are either of these "as scientific" as say physics or chemistry? Maybe I should open another thread..........Enough. I digress.

Buz there is a heck of a lot of material here. This would be a lot easier if you would pick an example that you think is the best of the bunch in terms of meeting the criteria for scientific research that have been established earlier in this thread. Would that be possible?
Also before we continue can we ascertain whether or not you do actually accept the crieria that have been established earlier? Otherwise there is little point in going through the whole process again with yet another specific example.
Unless we are all talking the same language so to speak, it will inevitably result in bad feeling and frustration so I suggest we verify the criteria on which we are assessing these examples properly beforehand.More generally - I know it can get quite exhausting when each posting you make results in a flood of replies each pulling it apart in various ways. I will bear this in mind and try and stick to the main points in any further discussion rather than trying to address everything at once.Look forward to your chosen example.

Obviously I have not read all these papers. However I am afraid that this is what we are saying.
Not because we have decided that anything that proposes an alternative to established theories must by definition be wrong (that is after all how science progresses). Nor because we have all just decided that anything that suggests a version of physical events compatible with biblical creation cannot be science. That conclusion is potentially as valid as any other if the conclusions are made scientifically.Rather this assertion is based on the fact that every example given here and every example of creationist research I have ever seen (and presumably the others opposing you on this thread have ever seen) applies a fundamentally different approach to it's research than that which has been described as the definition of the scientific methdod elsewhere in this thread and that which has been used to achieve the results of all conventional science.Science is it's method. If the method is different it is not science.
Creationist research just does not apply this method.Creationist research effectively draws it's hypotheses from predetermined conclusions that it considers irrefutable. These conclusions are based neither on physical evidence nor logical inevitability. It then sets out to show how the evidence supports these claims by considering only evidence that COULD support these claims.
The scientific method is so much more than merely making a claim and then looking for evidence that could support it. Without prediction, without the possibility of refutation and without the logical consequences of the hypotheses being examined in detail the investigation is just not scientific.I fully expect that ALL the papers you have put forward for examination will follow a general trend to a greater or lesser extent.
1) They will make a claim or state a hypotheses the basis of which is indirectly biblical with no physical foundataion.
2) They will then put forward the physical evidence which they assert supports this claim.
3) Any way in which the claim and the evidence supposedly supporting this claim contradicts conventional science will be examined in this context at great length. The strong implication being that if the conventional view is wrong then the one being put forward must by default be true.
4) No predictions regarding unknown outcomes of future investigation or experimentation will be made.
5) No means of refuting the hypotheses in any practical context will be put forwards.
6) No known evidence that contradicts the original hypotheses in any way will be discussed.
7) Finally a conclusion will be drawn that the physical evidence fully supports and justifies the original hypotheses.That just is not science. As long as IDists put forward research of this type they will not be accepted as doing science no matter how much evidence they put forwards.
Until it is understood (and agreed) why the above is not science there is absolutely no point discussing creationist research on a case by case basis.
However if you feel there are any of these papers which do not fall foul of the above then it seems there are many of us here happy to examine them.I wish you well.

Firstly Buz’s perseverance in the face of adversity is to be commended. I fundamentally disagree with almost his entire viewpoint but I think he has put his point across in good faith. It was pity that more creationists were not able to take up the baton and help his cause.I personally would argue that creationist science is in fact impossible.Not because, as Buz suggests in his last post, I believe that any conclusion that is compatible with biblical creation is inherently unscientific. This conclusion is as potentially valid as any other as long as it is made scientifically
Nor because the definition of science actively precludes anything that contradicts or provides alternatives to established scientific theories.
There is a fine history within science of established theories being refuted, discredited and eventually overturned by better ones. This is how science progresses.The reason I think creationist science is fundamentally impossible is because it reverses the very foundations of why we undertake scientific investigation in the first place. Any faith based position is by definition not looking for answers. It is looking for verification. Without the spirit of discovery and the desire to accurately investigate the unknown the driving force that lies behind the methods of science are missing.Science holds physical evidence supreme in an effort to enforce an objectivity that will result in truthful findings that tell us about reality without reference to the beliefs or prejudices of the investigator.
Science holds detailed prediction in higher esteem than any other form of verification exactly because it is so difficult to achieve and it is therefore the best indication of the truth of a theory that we have.I do not claim that every conventional scientist achieves these ideals or is even consciously aware of them when undertaking their research. However I do think any true scientist would accept them as ideals.Creationists already believe they have the answers to the great questions. They are not undertaking research ultimately to discover new truths in the widest sense. Because of this they do not have idealised reasons for conducting research in a manner that is most conducive to ensuring that their theories are the closest objective approximation to the truth achievable.
Nor are they as stringent in ensuring that their methodologies impose all the checks and balances on a given theory that this approach necessitates.This I would argue is why creationist research can be so lackadaisical regards it’s methods and foundation in physical evidence.
This is why refutable predictions are so notably absent from almost all creationist conclusions.No matter that creationists present their research in a manner that resembles scientific data gathering. No matter that the claims being made on barely hidden assumed biblical truths are called hypotheses. This is just dressing a faith based claim in the clothes of science in attempt to give it the same authority science has achieved as a result of it's success.Ultimately if the investigation in question does not set out to unlock unknown mysteries about reality and impose measures to ensure that the best possible objective answer is achieved, it is just not science.Creationist research, and any other faith based research for that matter, is not and cannot be, scientific in any area that conflicts with it’s faith based beliefs and the way in which these interact with the physical world.
Creationist research is not seeking to investigate the unknown or to provide innovative and creative yet truthful answers to the seemingly unknowable. For that reason above all other it is not science.I believe the examples here have demonstrated that.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.