XXXX Science

I mentioned him solely as an example of some who use data related to employment involving natural things for the purpose of supporting IDist origins since he does seminars, lectures and public debates relative to creationism/evolution after having been an avowed evolutionist most of his life. He is not one who is reckless in his approach but in fact, quite conservative and careful. He has no website. I'm not sure how far he travels but likely his employment restricts the scope of his operation.In retrospect, I was remiss in using him for and example since he is not widely known.

---

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

I find it interesting that the term "atheist" is invoked much more often by true believers than by non-believers. Not very many scientists I know of even bother to make that distinction. As for me, I am an "untheist": Whether or not God exists is unimportant and irrevelant to understanding anything about nature.”Hoot Mon

I definitely was not addressing the question of whether someone is or isn't a scientist. I was addressing the question of whether someone is or isn't doing science. Doing science isn't a matter of what credentials you have but whether your research is consistent with the definition of science. Baumgardner is a PhD geologist who has published legitimate scientific papers about physical processes deep within the earth. He's also a creationist. When he's writing papers based upon evidence of natural phenomena, then he's doing science. When he's writing papers based upon Biblical phenomena for which there is no scientific evidence, then he is not doing science.Credentials are not a criteria for science. Nowhere in any of my efforts to define science for you have I said, "Science is done by people with PhD's." I have also never said, "Everything a scientist does is science." None has yet been brought to our attention, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening somewhere, though you would be correct to guess that I certainly doubt it. That isn't consistent with what I said, and it isn't possible to make definitive statements like this. I once again refer you back to the definition of science. To the extent that IDists are studying phenomena for which they have no evidence, they aren't doing science.--Percy

Let me explain my concern. Although nearly every Ider and creationist we have yet come across has obvious preset religious conclusions, is this a feature of the people studying Id and creation science, or is this a fact of the field itself? This is important, because in court someone may always claim that "Well, so-and-so was doing illegitimate creation science because of their preset conclusions, but I am doing legitimate creation science." This has been tried in court, of course unsuccessfully because these statements were flat out lies- the person making the claims did have preset conclusions. Is there something about creation science which is inherently unscientific, or is it simply the way creation science has been practiced that makes it unscientific? This seems to be what this thread is really about, and I think we have enough information to definitively answer this question, I just want to hear someone give a concise, convincing answer.

Any area of interest, whether scientific or not, is defined by the collective beliefs of the group studying that area, meaning that you can't really consider creationists separately from creation science. Creationists approach subjects like evolution and geology with preset and non-negotiable religious ideas, and you cannot separate this quality from the field itself. The field is literally defined by the people pursuing it as an area of study.The tenets of science are whatever the collective body of scientists decides by consensus, and there is a huge amount of consensus. The frontiers of science where findings fluctuate too and fro are but the outer skin of a very thick and solid fruit.But there is no equivalent consensus in creationism, not even "evolution is wrong." For example, IDist Michael Behe accepts that evolution is responsible for most of the diversity of life, and he only resorts to ID for certain microbiological structures that he considers irreducibly complex. But other IDists reject all evolution beyond the kind level. This situation of inconsistency characterizes all of creationism and ID. It's just a jumble of conflicting views and opinions united solely by their opposition to evolution. Creation science is inherently unscientific because it studies phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world. It is perfectly possible to pursue creationism in a scientific manner, as for example John Baumgardner does in some of his creationist papers that are so filled with charts and graphs, but charts and graphs and measurements and analyses are merely the tools of science. They're also the tools of carpenters and budget analysts. Using the tools of science doesn't magically turn what you're doing into science. Just as purchasing a hammer and saw doesn't mean you can produce decent furniture, using charts and graphs doesn't mean you're producing decent science. Of course, the general lay public can't tell the difference, and creationism takes full advantage of this.--Percy

Especially when what they usually mean is not-my-theism, as they don't seem to distinguish between non-believers in {A} and non-believers in {ALL}. A friend of mine uses "apatheist" -- just doesn't care. I think if you did a poll on the numbers of americans that would agree with that statement that the numbers would suprise the theists.Of course "apatheist science" would likely be rather ... pathetic eh? (just to touch base with the topic)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : topic

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I assume by this you mean there are ID creationist scientists doing science with nature research/study/observation activity applying to things in nature, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation. Their scientific status by definition ends when they attempt to apply the natural science they have done to support or falsification of Biblical or other IDist origins.If I have it correct, it appears that we can deduce your position to be that there are ID creationist scientists doing science but (Abe: you are aware of) no ID science being done.Thank you for bearing with me so as to clarify what your position is. It helps so as to prevent confusion and misunderstanding when in dialog on the science issues that come up from time to time.My position and I would assume that of many other IDist creationists would be that when natural science is being done by IDist scientists for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying Biblical or other IDist origins, one could call it ID creationist science. An example of this would be archeological and geological research such as on site digging et al at cities and locations named in the Bible et al which might result in verification/falsification of the Biblical account. This IMO would be doing IDist science by observing/studying natural evidence. Edited by Buzsaw, : clarification as indicated in context.

---

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

Buzsaw,At this point, I'd actually like a clarification of your opinion. Are you implying that if any portion of the Biblical account is true, then all of the Bible is true? It may be quite easy for one to find evidence that the Jew were sent into Diaspora however many thousand years ago through a scientific investigation. But this does nothing to show that Jesus performed miracles, or that God created the world in 7 days. Each and every fact in the Bible must be separately confirmed by independant scientific studies in order to be determined true.This is true for any historical reference. If you are performing "creation science," or here defined as determining the accuracy of Biblical accounts, two things must be true in order for this to be considered science. One, you must be willing to accept evidence which argues against Biblical accounts, and two, you must treat the Bible as you would any other historical reference- that is, treat it with a grain of salt. Are you willing to accept these two things? If there is a historical manuscript which contradicts the account of the Bible, it must be given just as much weight as the Bible, and the only arbitrator in this conflicting circumstance is discovered archeological evidence, or something like that depending on the nature of the conflict.The point of all this is that if someone performs "ID science," as you call it, the term ID science is misleading. Someone can perform a scientific investigation about the Bible, sure. But there is nothing that should distinguish this from regular old science. ID science is only science in so far as it confirms facts about the world, if those facts also tend to be Biblical accounts, that is secondary and inconsequential to the fact that this is science. On the other hand, if someone is trying to claim that the Bible as a whole is true, then they are most likely not doing true science. This is because proving the Bible to be true requires independantly proving every fact in the Bible to be true, which is more work than anyone can reasonably be expected to pursue in their lifetime.Doing science has nothing to do with the conclusion you reach, it has everything to do with the way you reach the conclusion. Therefore, a statement like is obviously trying to force someone into basing science on its conclusions, not its means. Percy has refused to answer your question in the way you want, because you have framed it in a misleading fashion. He has said that no IDer that he knows of is doing science, which simply means that no IDer he knows of is using the correct scientific means, not that no IDer can ever do science, or even ever do science that supports ID. So don't do around claiming Percy has said that no one who supports ID is a scientist, even though I know you want to, because that would be extremely libelous.Sorry for answering for you Percy I didn't mean to, but it kinda came out. I was tired of watching Buzsaw contort your words to mean what he wants, rather than accept what you obviously mean and is the logical conclusion.

Your "AbE" is placed in a grammatically awkward spot, and I guess I'm not really sure what you're saying "ID science" is, so all I can do is use this as a point of departure.If by "ID science" you mean something like "geological science", which only means "the field of science called geology," then while there is really no legitimate scientific field called ID science, using the term that way is fine because everyone knows what you mean.But if by "ID science" you mean "non-naturalistic science", then that's not science at all. Non-naturalistic science is not another kind of science, it's just not science at all. Just as there is no such thing as a square circle, there is no such thing as non-naturalistic science.What I'm giving you is a fishing pole instead of a fish. Science is the study of natural phenomena. If you want to know if anyone is doing genuine science, just answer this question: Are they studying a natural phenomenon?Young earth creationists are studying phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world, such as creation in six days only a few thousand years ago, and a global flood as the causative force behind most geological structures we observe today. Instead of seeking to understand the evidence for a young earth and a global flood (which they can't do since none has ever been found), young earth creationists seek evidence for phenomena that have no evidence, outside the Bible.IDists seek evidence of specified complexity (Dembski, Gitt) and irreducible complexity (Behe). Both are made-up terms, and both include an unqualified and unjustified assumption, that natural processes are inadequate for producing the structures they think exhibit these made-up qualities. ID also includes an inherent contradiction, which is the infinite regression that leads to the first designer who could not have been designed, thereby contradicting the prime tenet of ID, that a complex intelligence could only have been designed by a pre-existing complex intelligence.So by the definition of science, the study of natural phenomena, to the extent that creationists and IDists are not studying natural phenomena they are not doing science.Now I've given you the fishing pole for catching fish that are real science, it's up to you to use it. As long as you keep in mind that ID creationist science is not actually science at all, at least the examples of it we see presented here, then sure, call it that. This is *not* an example of ID creationist science because it studies phenomena (the existence of ancient cities) based upon evidence from the natural world, and because creationism and ID are not issues of archeology. Conducting a dig at Ur is science, while seeking evidence of a world wide flood is not science, and saying, "DNA is complex and must have been designed," is not science. They could one day become science if it ever becomes possible to make these same statements while citing evidence from the natural world.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Rephrase both first and final paragraphs.

Well i think I'll break the mold here and disagree with most of the other posters. I think XXXX science is a very useful thing. Here's a quick list of perfectly valid XXXX sciences, with the XXXX in brackets:Reductionist biologyHolistic biologyFunctionalist biologyNomogenetic biologyStructuralist biologySystems biologyComputational biologyMathematical biologycomplexity and self-organization biology (well... you know what I mean)neoDarwinian biologyPhysical anthropologyCultural anthropologyTop-down artifical intelligenceBottom-up artifical intelligenceetc. etc.Some of these XXXXs will be solved through empirical testing (i.e. top-down versus bottom-up AI), some describe different approaches to tackling the same problem (i.e. reductionist versus complexity/self-organization), and some mayreflect the world view or personal taste of the scientist (i.e. holistic biology for the hippies, computational biology for the nerds, etc).Creationist science doesn't fit in there simply because it is obviously an intellectual dead-end, unlike all of the others which have at least some kind of philosophical interest or practical use which spurs invention and provides interesting results. I suppose it is inevitable that "reductionist biology" will find reductionist conclusions, "holistic biology" will find holistic conclusions, "mathematical biology" will find incomprehensible conclusions, etc. That's not the problem with creationist biology. The problem is that it finds "wrong" conclusions.MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

Because that's what Wiki diverted me to. If there is no match, Wiki will let you know. However, if something closely matches another in your search request, it will automatically bring you to the closest match. I said it was "wordly," which is exactly what secular means. Exactly my point. I didn't say it derisively, I'm stating something factual. No, science is only equipped to study the physical world, which is fine. Science is ill-equipped to make any sort of determination on what is "spiritual" and what is not. The only thing science can do in defense for any spiritual beliefs is to note the appearance of design. The point is that the OP asked if there was anything known as "atheist science." I responded that, yes, in a sense "secular science" is an inherently atheistic premise. In fact, it is its sole premise. What cytogenetics is called today, used to be referred to as eugenics, which is a very real study. What I mean to say is that the sociological view associated with eugenics precipitates from the study of cytogenetics. Lets try this again since you're a big advocate for the Dictionary.cytogenetics: the branch of biology linking the study of genetic inheritance with the study of cell structure, esp. for human chromosome analysis for the detection of inheritable diseases.eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).Therefore, cytogenetics could be construed as the application of positive eugenics-- in fact, the whole point is to eliminate undesirable traits that lead to disease. I never needed it to be explained to me before. The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact. It all boils down to belief when you you think about it. And just so you know, I'm not saying that science should dogmatically hold on to a previous view if it is demonstrably shown false. I'm merely pointing out that if something is considered true today, wait around and it might be completely false in a couple of days.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I understand what the OP meant. I'm merely attempting to show that virtually all science will pander to preconceived notions, whether they ascribe to a secular or religious world view.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

People have preconceived notions; people are influenced by them. Einstein added the cosmological constant because he had the preconceived idea that the universe was static.Science does not have "notions". Science as a process is not biased one way or another. It simply deals with what can be dealt with. The process has proved to be remarkably resistant -- in the long term -- to the notions of it's practioners.

I think this has already been addressed in this thread, but it bears repeating. Science has no "atheistic premise". The best that science can do is note that there is no scientific evidence for God. About things for which there is no evidence science can make no comment. In the absence of evidence science cannot say that there is a God, and it can't say that there isn't a God. In the absence of evidence science can be neither theistic nor atheistic. It can not make any assertions either way. In the absence of evidence science can at best be agnostic.There are those who go on to note that even the agnostic position makes little sense, and to make this point I will again introduce Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. Let us say that someone asserts that there is a teapot hurtling through space midway between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Can science prove that there is no such teapot? No, of course not. Does that make it reasonable to believe in such a teapot? No. Is it reasonable to be agnostic about such a teapot? No. End of argument.In other words, the burden is not upon science to prove the non-existence of things for which there is no evidence, and given the richness of human imagination it makes no sense to declare oneself an agnostic with regard to unicorns or an a-griffinist with regard to griffins. If the religious are truly intent upon making scientifically valid statements about God, then it is incumbent upon them to seek out the valid scientific evidence. It certainly makes no sense to ask everyone else to take positions upon that which has no evidence in the first place.--Percy

Despite the concept and indeed the practice of eugenics preceding the discipline of cytogenetics, in its most embryonic form, by decades at the least? That is if we only go as far back as Galton and not to other historic 'breeding' programs.Despite the fact that Eugenics is conceivable based on nothing more than the observations of selective breeding already well established and recognised? What was the consternation over miscegenation in the states in the mid-19th century over if not similar concerns to many racial-eugenecists? Well actually the whole point is to study and understand the molecular and genetic architecture of the cell and the transmission of genetic and other associated factors over generations. That one of the principal areas of study is genetic diseases, and in turn possible cures through practices such as gene therapy, does not mean that is the purpose and reason of cytogenetics.That genetics/ genomics/ cytogenetics provide the sort of information which would be required for the application of practical eugenic programs does not mean that it is from eugenics that these disciplines developed.I agree that eugenics is a valid field of science, albeit a controversial and not very well researched one, but it isn't the field of science that cytogenetics developed from, although they arose around the same time. There is clearly some overlap however between those who studied genetics and those who promoted eugenics, Charles Davenport who was the director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the 1890's was also the founder of the American Eugenics movement would be one example.TTFN,WK