Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

No you aren't. You are telling us that ID/Creationism is not tested through the scientific method. This means it is not science. It is that simple. What you fail to mention is that it is not a scientific examination nor a scientific conclusion. No, they aren't. You have spent your entire time at this forum explaining why ID/Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Every time we ask for an hypothesis and experiment you tell us that ID/Creationism doesn't need to do this. I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science. The only barrier is the one that ID/Creationists erect around laboratories that prevent them from doing research.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Quit beating around the bush and provide the evidence.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Which is why creationism has failed.Thanks for playing.

taq, if you dont like the strict word Logic, then go with rational approach. logic is just a word to help define reality, its not reality. reality is the mind using a rational approach against the physical world, to solve problems and come to valid conclusionsthats what Iders do, indeed if we are on the same planet with the same abilites and limitations how could our APPROACHES be any different, terms notwithstanding Sure there are different levels of science, but the approach is limited to a few factors, correct. while there are more things to learn, there is no need to keep studying the laws of gravity to see if the are real and verfiable You can only conclude the ID is not science, because you are looking for the creator himself in the design principle, that is not required anymore than it is necessary for you to prove that the natural world is a product of itself. Your arguments and conclusions are valid tenative conclusions, as far as reality will allowas I stated in another post, experimentation does not need to be complicated, as in the things you describe to be science. To demonstrate this point beyond any doubt, the above description of science will only allow you an explanation of that which constitues reality as we know it,or the known physical worldif i am incorrect, please provide me an example of something the SM can describe outside that which we describe as the known world. the information you discover is already there for you to discover it, the SM wont reveal its initiation source, anymore than will ID.bring your more involved science to the table to answer the question of exisetence itself. It couldnt if it wanted to what you just described is nothing more than observation and examination by the human mind. You like to beef up the process with words to make it more complicated than it really isagain give me an example of something that the SM can reveal that is nothing more than what is alreadly present to discover. IOWs, your just using you brain by human deduction to explain the natural worldif i am wrong give me an example of something it has revealed using a process other than simple examination and experimentationNow isnt this what ID does? It examines the physical world, by means of observation and experimentation of order and complexity in order, to come to the conclusion of possible designif i did more complicated test or ten million ,ore tests they will all be the same and reveal the same thing Wrong for several reasons. Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research. the research for design is in the research and observation of physical properties. Like change is the result of the research of science, order is the result of the science and research of DesignYour mixing oranges with apples.this would be like me saying your not doing science since you have not demonstrated that the universe is a product of itself, or something else besides a designer.Your wanting a conclusion of my research and require none for yourself and say that i am not doing science since I have not produced the designerIf detailed order and law is not sufficent research for design, then it would follow that change and natural selection are not sufficent research for the conclusion of biological evolution. siince both clearly exist, but neither are knowableso we are both doing science or we are neither doing science.To demonstrate this further, tell me what hypothesis i should be looking for since you request one above and beyond what we have discovered?Dawn Bertot

What are your rules for differentiating design from non-design?Or is everything "designed?" If that is the case, you have nothing.So tell us, what rules do you use?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes about things that are dicoverable and nothing more, so what. if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?Im not saying your method is invalid, im saying your requiring conclusions of myself, you do not require for yourselvesYou dont understand that your methods cannot produce anymore than anyother basic scientific approach. You will find more details but it wont be anything more than a simple observation, experimentation and examinationthats all science is at its coreDawn Bertot

Empricism and Rationalism are different. Science uses Empiricism. Science is informed by the sensory. This is different from Rationalism which is informed by Reason and not the sensory. The approaches are different because ID/Creationism does not use the scientific method and empiricism. I am still not seeing an ID/Creationist hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental test. Where is it? If it is science then you should be able to point them out. Still not seeing any science. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to describe one. This makes zero sense. Please, use your head. False. It is examination through empiricism which necessitates a world outside of the mind.As an example, without citing a single finding from an experiment can you use logic to describe what matter is made out of? Using pure reason, show how it is done. That is not science. You test HYPOTHESES in science, as well as the NULL HYPOTHESIS. Please describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental design that would test both equally per ID/Creationism. If you can not, then you have proven that ID/Creationism is not science. Nope, I am asking for scientific research that backs the conclusion of design. Where is it?

How did you test the null hypothesis, that order and law are not the product of design?

What process of the human makeup do you use to carry out this process Im sorry where have I spent any effort explaining that ID does not follow the SM. More accurately I have stated that any examination of the human mind is science, that "scientists" have confused what science is to exclude ID on religious reasons and they have implied this both directly and indirectlyWhen i give you an experiment and a hypothesis you say it is not science because it does not meet your criteria, which is ofcourse is an inflated view of science and not an accurate explanation of scienceShould an accurte veiw of science and what constitues evidence ever be explained to those making law decisions, maybe the outcome would be differentAt any rate dont misrepresent me presentlydawn bertot

Actually, yes, within this context this forum is indeed "chopped liver". Though it is far above your snake-oil "public debate" travesties.It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer * that this forum is not a medium for publishing within the scientific community, so why are you so oblivious to that simple fact? This forum isn't even a forum for the scientific community, even though several of its members are also members of the scientific community. It is more of a coffee house or student union discussion.There is a very definite mechanism for publishing within the scientific community, one with which several members here are quite familiar, and about which you are totally ignorant -- or at least that is what you keep indicating to us. Nor are we expecting you personally to try to publish within the scientific community, but rather that is for your ID big guns to do. Which they avoid doing. Just as the "creation scientists" have always avoided doing and undoubtedly for the same reason: because the scientific community would immediately see right through their lies and their bullshit. Which is why both ID and "creation science" (which nowadays are relying more on ID, since their own cover has been blown) bypass the scientific community and concentrate all their bullshit on the general public, in order to deceive the public and sway public opinion. "Creation science" and ID have both been taking that approach from the very beginning. Neither is the least bit scientific.For ID to ever be considered scientific, your "big guns" need to do actual scientific research and then to publish within the scientific community. But it turns out that your "big guns" can fired nothing other than saluting charges, AKA "blanks." As one former creationist, Scott Rauch, wrote:

quote:

---

I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

---

{ *FOOTNOTE: An engineering catch-phrase. } Still dishing out the same old bullshit, Dawn? Just as you were three months ago just before you cut and ran from the topic, Intelligent Design vs. Real Science? After we conclusively showed you that you have nothing? Revisit those messages: Message 55 -- You claimed to have a "model" and dared me to show that it wasn't a model, nor the same as what science does. Message 64 -- I did exactly that, though Coyote had already done it in Message 61 along with providing the definition of model, which I also used. I also had to describe to you the basics of how a model is constructed and used, which is completely alien to your "model". I also pointed out where you admitted that your "model" is based on the supernatural: In Message 65 I addressed your repeated lies about logic and taught you about what you actually are practicing, sophistry, the abuse of logic in order to deceive your audience. Only your own attempts at sophistry are so crude you have to resort to repeatedly calling them "logical". I then show you why you need to present and support your premises, which you have repeatedly refused to do: In Message 69 you condescendingly bullshat: Which, three months later, you have yet to do.

I really dont mean to be rude, but sometimes science minds are simplest of all. I was laughing really hard when i read that.taq these are just terms they are not reality. reality is you and I using our minds against the world itself by a process of examination and experimentation to give possible explanations to that process. E and R are intertwined in reality and in the process, you cant have one without the other when examining the worldnow i can have a thought with no application to the world itself and that would more accuratley describe rationalism How in the world and reality could they be if we are both using our minds and physical properties. taq, lets say both of us were going to work on a car but you had a more extensive knowledge of the can than I, my total expertise was limted to tires and tire changingOur method of examination wouldnt be any different, we would use the same process, but how much more would our examination need to be for both of us to know it had four tires. Would we keep examining it to see if that simple truth were true. while your same self method of exam moved forward to more extensive problems, mine would end with the knowledge that that truth was true, regaurdless of whether I knew who made the carwhen both of us do that it is called science Since that is not my position, your query makes no sense. Please refer to what I said above how did you test the null hypo that evolution was not the product of a designer? So if we cant test the null hypo of evo not being the product of a designer is evo invalid as a scientific truth?Come on guys give something hard>Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ill strart here and with the rest of Taq latest post, God and Admin willing, when I return

AND SCIENCE WORKS, YOUR ID AND CREATIONISM DOES NOT WE HAD YOUR APPROACH TO DETERMINING REALITY IT LASTED ALMOST 1000 YEARS WE CALL THOSE TIMES THE DARK AGES. SCIENECE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ONLY 300 YEARS AND LOOK AT WHERE IT GOT US SO STOP DISHING SCIENCE AND STOP DEGRADING IT TO YOUR SIMPLE WIVES OF THE WORLD.ID AND CREATIONISM ARE NOT SCIENCE THEREFORE DO NOT BELONG IN A CLASSROOM AND ARE NOT A VIABLE MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY!!!!!! Edited by frako, : No reason given.

I know the frustration you are feeling, frako, and I empathize, but please lose the caps. It's just screaming and gets you nowhere.

Its just that willfully ignorant people drive me up the wall, especially arrogant ones, that keep insisting that something is science when it is clearly not, because by doing that they are belittling actual science the work that goes in to it, the progress it has brought us completely ignoring where humanity was before science.I would have no problem with ID if it actually presented any tangible evidence, i would have no problem with it if it substantiated its claims by experimentation. But what it is actually doing is saying well we want you to teach the stork theory along with the birth theory because it is fair and the stork theory is science and the birth theory has faults in it and there is plenty of evidence for stork theory just look at all the storks making their nests up on chimneys.We know where that kind of thinking got us you have a tooth ache well let me put a hot poker in your ear sure your ear hurts like hell and you might die of infection but my cure works you no longer feel the tooth pain it is science. And yes this "cure" and many others similar where used in the past because they did not need to apply the scientific method to make up their "science".And we know that when such silly ideas come on to the forum of our understanding they lead down a very steep hill to the dark ages. we have 2 historical roads that lead down that path. Europe when Christianity took over the abundance of scientific knowledge that was built up by the roman empire was lost, things like its good to take a bath every day, pluming, even a form of steam engine was invented. And the Muslims during the dark ages they where beacon of scientific understanding of the world look at where those countries are now. The creationists and ID ists want to take us down that road again willfully or un-willfully just as long as their precious beliefs in some imaginary being can stay safe.