Creation Muesum

[downbeatplumb]

Science is the only basis for the truth of reality because, correctly done, it removes as much as possible bias.

Is this statement true of reality?  While the demarcation of science is a difficult philosophical subject, I feel safe in saying, that the above is not science!

I feel safe in saying you are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYPgi1oUqXA

What is the alternative to scientific method to discern truth? Arguments and philosophy should always give way to evidence and that is science.

In science it is common to not try and prove a hypothesis but to disprove it. So what you get are scientists putting forward positions that would not be true if their hypothesis was wrong and check for that. Creationists take the exact opposite view, discarding anything that does not help their faith (I wont dignify it with hypothesis because it is too ill defined to qualify as one). They are the ultimate in the use of confirmation bias and outright lies.

Some do, and some do not. the same can be said for some in regards to evolution.    And again I don't believe you opinion here is science, so according to your above statement it is not true of reality.

What do you mean?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

---

Which is exactly what "Christian Science" is. Any "reputable" (and by reputable I mean accepted by Christians) Christian source has a statement of faith like the one from AiG I posted above. They literally state that any evidence which contradicts scripture must, by definition, be wrongly interpreted. Science can never start with an unassailable position. That is the antithesis of science.

This is a generalization. I would also point out that many naturalist make a similar claim (and with much less reason). I also take into consideration, that either the info gathered from science or scripture, may be wrongfully interpreted by myself.

---

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

---

If they start with the conclusion, then it is not scientific. By definition. If you start with the conclusion that the world must be 6,000 years old, and then go and search for corroborating evidence, even if said evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner, you are still only collecting evidence in a scientific manner. The interpretation of the evidence with the conclusion already in mind is not science. It is arm waving at its basest.

So then... if I am told by my teacher, that evolution is true, and then proceed to demonstrate in a scientific manner that it is true, then it is not science? It would seem that under this definition much of science, is not science!

---

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

---

Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion. Getting your "truth" from a 2000 year old book and co-opting modern knowledge into that, I'm sorry, is not a reconciliation of truth. It's wish granting, and I'll not be a part of it.

Are you saying, that unless something is observed, it is not science? Can science make an inference based on what is observed, to come to a conclusion about what was likely the cause (which was not empirically observed)?

[Exian]

Uh-oh, I smell a "evolution has never been observed" argument coming. This can only lead to a macro/micro evolution conversation. Get ready to hear about some imaginary boundary keeping "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution", which has never been observed.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

I'll make this real simple: in the scientific method, there are a few necessary conditions, one of which being that the asserted cause or conclusion one reaches through the data they observe must be possible. For a thing to be probable- and all science ever does is measure probabilities- then it must be possible, and I don't think this is a controversial statement in the least. Impossible things cannot probably be the cause of other things.

Since every single core christian claim has not been demonstrated to be possible and is, in accordance with the available evidence, most likely impossible, then christian conclusions cannot be legitimate science. Many christians want to skip the foundational step of demonstrating that the things they believe in can even happen at all before they attempt to use science to conclude that they did- "Oh, X, Y, and Z findings are totally consistent with this thing I believe and presuppose could actually happen, therefore christianity!"- but that's not a step you can ever skip. But christians are happy to skip it, while they piggyback on other people's reports and experiments to do so, because they never actually conduct experiments to test their claims either, they just take experiments others have done for unrelated claims and say yes, all that is totally consistent with my religion!

That's another reason there's no such thing as christian science, I guess: christians never do science. They never test those claims. They just spin other people's work in favor of their claims, so their religion is never under direct scientific scrutiny. Mite suspicious, that.

---

[Divinity]

You know, Creationism hasn't been fucking observed either.

[Huggy Bear]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

[RoadRunner79]

Uh-oh, I smell a "evolution has never been observed" argument coming. This can only lead to a macro/micro evolution conversation. Get ready to hear about some imaginary boundary keeping "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution", which has never been observed.

Perhaps, or I may lead somewhere else (depends on the answer);  but,  for now, I am just looking at the principles being asserted and trying to get a better clarification for what was said.  If we do that, then we can see if it is applied consistently.  I'm willing to be flexible on the rules, but changing the rules based on the case, is special pleading... wouldn't you agree?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Uh-oh, I smell a "evolution has never been observed" argument coming. This can only lead to a macro/micro evolution conversation. Get ready to hear about some imaginary boundary keeping "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution", which has never been observed.

That good old canard comes up quite often still.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

Why does anyone need to give a "version" of how the universe came into being? "I don't know" is the only honest answer anyone can give. Adopting some ancient narrative as The Truth that must be defended at all costs is arbitrary, dishonest, and idiotic.

[robvalue]

Oh wow, the argument from ignorance again. If I had a penny...

I've never had a problem saying "I don't know", even from a young age. It must be horrible to be so shit scared of that phrase that you'll believe anything as long as you have an answer.