Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,452 Year: 6,709/9,624 Month: 49/238 Week: 49/22 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 304 (358914)
10-26-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by kuresu
10-25-2006 10:46 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
kuresu writes:
you do not use C14 to date rock layers older than 70,000 years. If you do, you will automatically get a date that shows 70,000. The reason why? because at that point, there's so little unstable isotope left as to not get an accurate reading.
I was wondering about that factor myself, but figured there may have been some reason for citing it that I was not aware of. You appear to be addressing the quality of the science again in your message rather than whether the paper is a creo science project, i.e being science as deined.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by kuresu, posted 10-25-2006 10:46 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 2:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22941
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 287 of 304 (358924)
10-26-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Buzsaw
10-25-2006 10:11 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Hi Buz,
I see you've progressed from asking your opponents to find your evidence for you to blaming your opponents for your own poor performance. Could we just stick to the topic, please? I'm not moderating this thread, so you can stop with the "poor Buz" act portraying yourself as a victim of board moderation.
As I explained, and as you apparently failed to understand, Baumgardner's paper is not science because he has completely ignored the scientific requirement that hypotheses must be based upon and be about observations of natural phenomena. Because Baumgardner did not begin with evidence for the flood drawn from the natural world, his hypotheses are therefore disconnected from the natural world that it is science's purpose to study, and it is therefore not science.
If you look through your excepts from Baumgardner's paper you'll see that none of the described evidence is for a world wide flood, especially not in the portions you bolded. All Baumgardner is doing is speculating about how a world wide flood might not be impossible. If you think any of your bolded excerpts are evidence for a world wide flood then please explain how.
I am forced to address some of what you say just in the interests of accuracy:
Buzsaw writes:
Again as per your clear stance on your personal definition of science...
It is not my personal definition of science. Message 144 represents my best effort at characterizing the qualities and methodology of science. Please address yourself to the specifics of my characterization rather than casting general and disparaging unsupported criticisms.
...it would be helpful for you to warn up front at the registration page that creo hypothesis is not allowed in EvC's science fora..
It's not allowed, yet here you are? This makes sense to you?
...and that there is no alternative science forum in this site for creos to debate alternative science hypotheses.
The [forum=-11] forum has been present from the very beginning for just this purpose.
I am not inclined to participate in another thread since your position has been made very clear here as to what you consider to be acceptable science on your site.
You're just making personal a discussion about what is and isn't science. Rather than actually discussing the topic you've chosen throughout much of this thread to complain about the people you're discussing with. You had the opportunity to discuss the topic, you chose not to.
To go on would be simply be to beat a dead horse and serve no purpose so far as I can see.
I would agree that it would be pointless for you to go on as you are. Your contributions in this thread have been notable for their high level of off-topic complaining relative to on-topic discussion. I again suggest that you find someone competent in the sciences to take over for you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22941
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 288 of 304 (358928)
10-26-2006 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
10-26-2006 12:12 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Buzsaw writes:
I was wondering about that factor myself, but figured there may have been some reason for citing it that I was not aware of.
Don't you think it would be a good idea, just from a debate strategy standpoint, to understand the material before posting it, instead of having it explained to you by your opponents afterward?
The evidence Baumgardner is looking at in this case is that the level of 14C in layers containing the remains of organic material (such as coal layers) should be effectively zero, but isn't. It should be zero because the half-life of 14C is in the neighborhood of 5730 years, meaning that half the material in any sample of 14C will decay to 14N every 5730 years. After millions of years of half the 14C decaying every 5730 years there should be no measurable 14C left, and yet there is. Baumgardner is using the presence of measurable amounts of 14C to conclude that such layers cannot be millions of years old, because otherwise there would be no measurable 14C left.
In true creationist fashion, Baumgardner is ignoring evidence. As discussed in excruciating detail in the Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? thread from earlier this year, natural radioactivity in the ground gives rise to small amounts of free neutrons, thereby producing a slow but steady trickle of 14C from 14N. That the radioactivity is the cause of 14C is evident from the fact that 14C levels in coal correlate to the radioactivity level in each particular coal sample.
Baumgardner is also ignoring all the other radiometric data, such as K/Ar and Rb/Sr dating to mention just two, that confirms the age of coal layers, and that shows the layers above to be younger and the layers below to be older, and dating to ages in the millions to the hundreds of millions of years.
The significant question is why is Baumgardner postulating about the age of coal layers when he doesn't have any evidence for a world wide flood from around 5000 years ago. Since he is speculating about a phenomenon for which he has no evidence, he is not doing science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 6:33 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 291 by johnfolton, posted 10-26-2006 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 304 (358937)
10-26-2006 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Buzsaw
10-25-2006 10:20 PM


picking and choosing... for better science
At least two is enough to assume that you do not agree with those who argue that there's absolutely no ID or creo science being done any place by any anyone.
I don't think ID theorists and Creos are incapable of doing science. And it is possible that some have done science. I have just said that I found two papers where I believe science has been done, even if not done well. But this does not settle the issue.
More importantly, can you admit that two out of the rather large list of papers you pointed to, indicates that there is a problem with your claims of how much science is being done by these people, as well as the quality of research being produced?
For the record, of the two I found, there was much nonscience wrapped up in those papers, and what I call science is based on the descriptions of science given in posts #144 and 233 within this thread. Those posts were not personal or arbitrary discussions of scientific criteria or methodology. It is disappointing that you will not address the points within them, other than to label them as inherently biased.
If you approach this topic with hubris, that you are right and everyone else must be wrong, then YOU lose a chance to learn. If science is important, perhaps you should listen to why its methodology has changed and a narrow definition produced.
That the narrow definition denies much (nearly all) work by ID theorists as well as creos, should not automatically count out the narrow definition. It is that same narrow definition which denies adherents of other religions or philosophies from making easy cases, which you would not agree with either.
In asking for science to open the door wider, do you understand that events such as the Flood will receive just as much scientific support as Pagan mythological Atlantis, or manifestations of intergalactic/extradimensional beings?
Instead of facing one model with lots of evidence against creationist doctrine, one would then have innumerable models with lots of evidence against creationist doctrine.
Exactly how would that help your case? Would you feel then that science had been improved in that state?
I don't.
The narrow definition did not come about to help OE geologic or evolutionary theory. It came before them. While the uniformitarian concept emerged as an explicit concept along with OE geology, it was not meant to support it. After all they could not possibly have anticipated radioactive dating and the like.
The narrow definition tightened the screws on everyone equally, so as to focus research to the most fruitful locations first, as well as ensure more longstanding credibility of any claim by making it harder to make one's case in the first place.
Arguing that the strict definition is unfair, suggests that your theory is in jeopardy and you do not want to admit that perhaps you are wrong, OR... assuming your theory must be true... that you want the work to be easier than it actually should be.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 9:36 AM Silent H has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 290 of 304 (358940)
10-26-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Percy
10-26-2006 2:32 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
quote:
Baumgardner is also ignoring all the other radiometric data, such as K/Ar and Rb/Sr dating to mention just two...
He's also ignoring the fact that radiometric dating confirms that the rate of seafloor spreading has been of the same order of magnitude as current rates for a long time. There's no evidence for his catastrophic plate tectonics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 2:32 AM Percy has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 291 of 304 (358950)
10-26-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Percy
10-26-2006 2:32 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
In true creationist fashion, Baumgardner is ignoring evidence. As discussed in excruciating detail in the Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? thread from earlier this year, natural radioactivity in the ground gives rise to small amounts of free neutrons, thereby producing a slow but steady trickle of 14C from 14N. That the radioactivity is the cause of 14C is evident from the fact that 14C levels in coal correlate to the radioactivity level in each particular coal sample.
Please produce a scientific paper showing that the sediment particle is not in fact shielding the sediment particle. We can speculate all the possible ways C14 is produced but for C14 to be produced from N14 you would need an abundant supply of N14 within the earth to produce C14.
Where is the scientists papers that proves the lack of N14 within the earth is producing C14 in spite of the scientific fact of "the self shielding" of the sediment particles prevents this from happening.
Where is your neutron flux to overpower the self shielding particle, etc....you still need abundant N14 by your belief that from N14 your producing any amount of C14 within the earth.
You do realize that C14 thats dissolved from coal would mitigate in solution making coals ages slightly greater rather than younger.
Do you have a scientific paper or is this something your pulling out of your ---? Evolutionists are like this they assume something is a fact without anything other than double talk.
Where is your paper of evidence that proves your point and that Baumgardner is ignoring evidence. What evidence is he ignoring, even Kathelene Hunt has not provided any evidence that has been proven.
Please provide what Kathelene Hunts sources have to this point still not provided. I mean you can say its a fact but without evidence that even Kathelen Hunt is unable to provide your not making much sense to say that Baumgardener is ignoring the scientific evidence.
Edited by Bret, : No reason given.
Edited by Bret, : Provide reason for edit here.
In truth the lake suitsu study was a poorly documented study(very little information), and never addressed the biological sciences.
Its not Razds fault its simply that the information is missing from the lake suitsu lake varve study.
The lake suitsu lake study simply has not enough scientific information to determine if the varves are the result of annual depositions or the result of anaerobic humic acid sorting within the varves laid down during and since the biblical flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 2:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by FliesOnly, posted 10-26-2006 8:50 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 9:34 AM johnfolton has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4398 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 292 of 304 (358952)
10-26-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Buzsaw
10-25-2006 10:11 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Buzsaw writes:
but he also meets head on the primary evo objection, being radiometric dating showing in his scientific research paper clearly why he rejects the dating methodology which supports the uniformitarian non-catastrophic hypothesis.
But his reason(s) for rejecting radiometric dating is/are totally bogus Buzsaw. Honestly, have you looked at counter arguments to his claims about why radiometric dating doesn't work? That "perhaps decay rates have not been constant" can be refuted by a moderately intelligent high school student.
But in relation to The Big Picture, am I missing something here? Maybe you or someone else can explain this to me, as I am most certainly not well versed in Geology. But tell me, if "catastrophic plate tectonics" (CPT) was a viable option, don't you think somebody would have noticed? Look what happened to San Francisco in 1906 when the plates shifted just a few feet over a 50-60 second time period. Ya think somewhere, someone would have noticed CPT and maybe mentioned it to someone. Maybe wrote it down as a story to be passed on from generation to generation. Oh wait, I remember now, some dude in the Middle East noticed, and built his self a boat. Of course, no one else on the planet seemed too annoyed with CPT and their lives apparently went on just fine, thank you very much.
For that matter Buz, do you even know what needs to be taken into account and/or ignored in order for CPT to be a viable option? You expect me to believe that all the ocean's floors lifted upwards of one kilometer and no one except for Noah bothered to notice? Think about this for a second Buzsaw. The friggen ocean floors lifted almost one mile? All the floors, of all the oceans!! One kilometer! I dare say that the evidence for such an event would be overwhelmingly obvious and abundant. Yet no one noticed. Nor is such an event even necessary, for that matter, unless one needs to explain a Global flood.
Assume for a second or two that there was no Global Flood story. Would we ever even consider the "necessity" of CPT? I think not. Look, the one and only reason CPT was put forth as any sort of story was to explain how a Global Flood may have occurred. Without that "need" CPT is not needed, nor are the numerous leaps of faith one needs to take to accept CPT.
So I guess the only viable conclusion we can draw after reading this paper is that it most definitely is NOT science, and here's why.
As Percy has explained repeatedly, we in science do not start with a conclusion and set about to prove it. We make observations, ask questions, develop TESTABLE hypotheses, design and conduct experiments, analyses the results, present these to our peers for review, and then accept or reject our conclusion(s). Notice how "conclusions" is the last step.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2006 10:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4398 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 293 of 304 (358954)
10-26-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by johnfolton
10-26-2006 8:01 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Bret writes:
Evolutionists are like this they assume something is a fact without anything other than double talk.
Yeah, we just make all this shit up as we go along. I guess I might as well go over to that big building with all those books and scientific journals in it and just throw them away. They're obviously just full of a bunch of made-up bull shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by johnfolton, posted 10-26-2006 8:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22941
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 294 of 304 (358957)
10-26-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by johnfolton
10-26-2006 8:01 AM


Re: ICR Science Research Papers
Hi Bret, Johnfolton, Tim, Tom, whatever,
The thread Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? is still open. Please resume discussion of 14C production within geologic layers at that thread rather than drawing this thread off-topic. I believe you were in the middle of ignoring most of 40,000 years of lake varve data when you last posted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by johnfolton, posted 10-26-2006 8:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 304 (358958)
10-26-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
10-26-2006 5:36 AM


Re: picking and choosing... for better science
Holmes writes:
The narrow definition tightened the screws on everyone equally
No it didn't. It exclusively narrowed the definition of science to eliminate ID and creationism from the science arena, demonizing any argument for intelligent design and limit all science to secularist naturalist ideology. You people include just about everything in your science research papers as science and are hard pressed to include anything in ours as science. So far in this thread nearly all evolutionists ELIMINATE EVERY LAST BIT, ADMITTING TO NOTHING AS SCIENCE in our science research papers. The charts, graphs, models, evidences, corroborating papers, et al are ALL discounted by nearly all my counterparts of this thread as non science yet nearly all of the stuff in science research papers is considered science to them if the author of the work happens to be evolutionist and secularist. They throw out the baby with the bathwater, insisting that if ANYTHING in the paper hints of ID the WHOLE PAPER is discounted as non-science. This blatant bias defies their/your own definition of science. If evolutionists were fair and balanced, they'd say "thus & thus in this paper is considered science to them but thus and thus is not," but no, they simply demean and insult the IDist scientist, regardless of qualification and status by insisting that the WHOLE THING is non-science. I see this as irrational bias so as to unfairly and tenaciously control the science agend in all aspects of society. In America and most of the world little by little freedom is being narrowed to totally secularize legitimate thought and expression.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2006 5:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2006 10:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22941
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 296 of 304 (358961)
10-26-2006 9:46 AM


In Conclusion
Hi all,
This thread has only a few posts to go, so I'm going to suggest we post summaries. If the moderators could indulge us for a bit, it would be good if the thread could be kept open for the rest of today so that people have time to do this, even though that might extend the thread a bit past 300 messages. Please, no replies to other messages during this period of posting concluding remarks.
My own summary is going to be short. Science has a methodology and a set of qualities, and a fair attempt at describing these resides in Message 144. Research that possesses those qualities and follows that methodology qualifies as science. We've examined a few creationist efforts and found that they were all hypothesizing about phenomenon for which they possess no evidence (usually the world wide flood), a clear violation of the scientific method.
--Percy

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 297 of 304 (358970)
10-26-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Buzsaw
10-26-2006 9:36 AM


Re: picking and choosing... for better science
No it didn't. It exclusively narrowed the definition of science to eliminate ID and creationism from the science arena, demonizing any argument for intelligent design and limit all science to secularist naturalist ideology.
Calm yourself and think about this very carefully. How could the definition have been narrowed to eliminate ID and creationism, when it was narrowed when ID never existed and by people that at the time did not doubt claims regarding the creation?
In fact, ID itself is a recent phenomena which is a reaction to the definition.
There is no question that it focuses investigation to components of the natural world, however that is for practical reasons and not secular ones. If nonsecular claims regarding the world are true, then a narrow definition will hurt the secularist all the same. That is unless there is no sign in natural (read observable) world.
They throw out the baby with the bathwater, insisting that if ANYTHING in the paper hints of ID the WHOLE PAPER is discounted as non-science.
I can agree that some criteria used by people here have been a bit overzealous. However, I have not seen anybody denounce any specific piece of work as nonscience without good cause. That is they may throw in some extra zingers they don't need to, but the case is already made well enough.
They would be right that where nonscience is encountered and the focal point of a paper, then it is not science. In addition, and this is something you have not dealt with, just because a paper includes charts or lists scientific references, that does not mean one is looking at a science paper. It does not mean that science is being done.
I am honestly telling you that many of those papers I looked at were simply philosophical essays, creating theories based on a collection of evidence and references, with no actual science being done. No investigation = no science being done.
In America and most of the world little by little freedom is being narrowed to totally secularize legitimate thought and expression.
No one here is arguing that these subjects cannot be discussed, or even believed. The question here is if there is any support for such theories in the specific field of science, and whether practices of creationists claiming to be doing science are actually science.
You would be correct that secularization of public educational institutions is happening. I happen to agree with that myself, as secular does not mean antireligious. A person can receive a secular education and be highly religious. They are not incompatible. The reverse cannot be said.
There is an interest in not dumbing down science, by suddenly broadening its definition to fit religious interests, but that is actually separate from secularization of public education. Sure they may cross lines here and there, but highly religious people who want faith taught in schools might still want science to maintain a narrow definition.
You did not answer my point that a broad definition would open a floodgate to not only Biblical concepts but many others as well. For example biology course could start being packed with all sorts of New Age, or Earth Mother concepts... and it would be considered scientifically valid. Would that be an improvement?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2006 9:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 298 of 304 (358975)
10-26-2006 10:29 AM


I think that Buzsaw's attitude throughout this thread has demonstrated why creationism is not and never will be science
Buz sees no need to actually look into the facts. In the case of Chris Miller he stated that "nothing would convince him" that Miller was not doing science. Yet Miller himself admitted that the experiment Buz referred to did not exist.
On the other hand Buzsaw's opponents have dug into the facts and found that Buz is wrong. For this they are met with anger and false accusations. For telling the truth instead of agreeing with Buzsaw.
Science requires digging into the facts. It is not about choosing a conclusion that suits the enquirer and not bothering to look further. In choosing the latter approach Buzsaw has illustrated exactly what is wrong with creationism and why it cannot be science.

jar
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 299 of 304 (358988)
10-26-2006 11:18 AM


Science is Adversarial
There has been much discussion of whether or not peer review is a necessary component of doing science. I think the importance of the concept of review has been understated in this thread.
IMHO one of the biggest reasons that Science and the Scientific Method has succeeded where other methods (Magic, ID, Biblical Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology) have not is the innate adversarial nature of Science and the Scientific Method. In Science, ideas are placed before other folk who then try to replicate or falsify the results.
It is this adversarial process, every paper, every experiment is placed out in the marketplace of Science to be challenged, that is the secret to the success of the scientific-method.
When ID or Biblical Creationism withhold certain parts of the process from challenge, for example the question of whether a world-wide flood even happened, they immediately stop doing science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 300 of 304 (358989)
10-26-2006 11:18 AM


concluding summary (holmes)
I wrote my reply to Buz before Percy posted his final statement. This will be my concluding statement, as per his request.
Post 144 was an excellent overview of what makes up science. Posts 152 and 159 by RAZD and myself, give some additional (useful) tweaks, though are not necessary unless more in depth discussion on the topic is desired.
Post 233 gives an excellent discussion of the differences in how scientists and creos (or at least buz) understand, construct, and use hypotheses within investigations. It is a perfect companion piece to post 144 for those who do not understand much about science, to understand its core (or foundational?) elements.
On the evo side, there has been disagreement regarding some specific criteria for what constitutes "doing science", as opposed to running a scientific experiment, or perhaps taking part in science. Ultimately this was immaterial to assessments of whether ID theorists and Creationists have been doing science as they have admittedly failed regardless of those contended issues anyway.
However, I will restate that peer review, no matter how useful (and it is exceedingly useful) is not necessary in order to "do science". Such a definitional requirement leads to absurd logical conclusions regarding what is and is not science. It is an invaluable tool one is a fool not to use... when possible... but it is not a definitional requirement.
On the creo side, I believe Buz was correct in pointing out that there is a broad definition for science that would encompass ID/Creo work. However he never explained or defended why the older/broader definition should be used, or why the newer/narrower definition was inadequate. All he did was complain that it was unfair, and inaccurately asserted it was created to hinder ID/Creo work, and advance evo theory.
He offered studies which were clearly shown to be nonscience, and to some degree fraudulent. Worse still his own claims regarding some creo work were proven inaccurate by the person he was referencing. Sadly Buz ignored these problems to insist that evos were the ones displaying bias.
In defence of his general point, I will say that it is possible for ID theorists and Creos to do science, and I do believe a couple of the papers (in the long list of nonscientific papers he gave) showed work that fit that criteria (even if portions of the papers were not, and the actual science work flawed). I think it is errant to claim that they inherently cannot do so.
I think a more accurate statement is that for the most part ID theorists and Creos have never done science, and that is because they choose not to do science. This would not be a problem except that they continue to claim that is what they are doing. Worse still they attempt to disrupt and discredit those who choose to do real science.
My remaining question, and one I have had since I discovered ID, is why they don't want to work within the parameters of modern science? If their theories are true then they will come out in the end. That it might take longer should not be an issue, if they have faith their theory is real.
It seems to me the likely answer is that they understand their theory is untrue and do not want to engage in a field where one of the tenets is admitting when one is wrong. If things were rolling in their direction evidence wise they wouldn't mind the narrow definition at all. But evidence is not in their theory's favor, so... since their theory must be right... it must remain untested.
As long as they choose not to test their theory, they choose not to do science. That has largely been the history of ID/Creationism. Their only... rare... forays into science have been limited to attempts at testing other theories.
Edited by holmes, : specified peer review
Edited by holmes, : general fix

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024