Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
To be science, in the loosest sense of the term, it must have at least these three elements:
It must have a hypothesis formed from as much data as can be gathered (all of it) in order to construct the idea in accordance with the best-known information on the natural phenomena involved.
It must then have a null-hypothesis formed, a condition under which experimentation can potentially falsify the claim.
It must then submit the results and conclusions to the peer-review process, by which anyone/everyone may reproduce the results, and in this process it must be subjected to scrutiny for bias, assumption, and/or methodological error.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
(October 26, 2015 at 8:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Not a priori. Show me some of this science. I'll let it stand on its own merits. I have asked politely for some of this creationist science multiple times, but you are loath to produce it.
I suppose what I have been trying to get to; and will just come out and ask is what is your definition of science? What are the minimum requirements that are needed to be in your view science? I would like to nail down the goal posts, before we proceed.
TRS got it, but in a nutshell:
Start with a hypothesis that must be both plausible and falsifiable, devise an experiment that will adequately test said hypothesis, collect data.
Publish your findings to your peers. The experiments will then be reproduced, or better yet experiments using an alternate method will be run, in order to reproduce the data and findings. A self-correction process happens when these two diverge.
So---about the question that I've been asking for 21 pages now, let's see some of this creationist science. With the prolific people that you mentioned last page, you should have papers abound that demonstrate that creationists do science all the time, right?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
October 27, 2015 at 2:37 pm (This post was last modified: October 27, 2015 at 2:39 pm by robvalue.)
If someone asked me to "teach the controversy", I'd teach that some people were trying to force theology into the science curriculum.
Science is generally intended to be useful in some sense or other too. Creationism isn't useful in any way, because it gives no actual explanation of anything.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(October 27, 2015 at 8:17 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I suppose what I have been trying to get to; and will just come out and ask is what is your definition of science? What are the minimum requirements that are needed to be in your view science? I would like to nail down the goal posts, before we proceed.
TRS got it, but in a nutshell:
Start with a hypothesis that must be both plausible and falsifiable, devise an experiment that will adequately test said hypothesis, collect data.
Publish your findings to your peers. The experiments will then be reproduced, or better yet experiments using an alternate method will be run, in order to reproduce the data and findings. A self-correction process happens when these two diverge.
So---about the question that I've been asking for 21 pages now, let's see some of this creationist science. With the prolific people that you mentioned last page, you should have papers abound that demonstrate that creationists do science all the time, right?
Thank you for the definition. According to what you and TRS have given here, I would agree, that creationism and intelligent design do not qualify as science. From what I gather from the two posts, there is a focus on a model, which can be tested and verified or falsified. In Creationism and Intelligent design, I would describe them as presenting evidence, and making an inference from the evidence. The evidence is gathered using scientific principles and may be falsified. But it does not falsify a model, which can be repeated. In my opinion, this is a fairly restrictive definition, and would restrict many of the investigative sciences. For instance, I do not think that common descent evolution would meet these requirements as I have understood them. I would even question if evolutionary change and variation of species which is almost universally accepted, could meet the specificity which I believe is implied here.
So far, while I believe the definition is restrictive, I don't necessarily disagree with it. It was recently said here, that many in the forum work in science, and according to this definition given, I believe this would be an overstatement. Both of you mentioned peer review publication as a qualification or quality of science. On this point, I would disagree. I believe there was science before the peer review process. Also, I see peer review and acceptance as an acknowledgement or test, of science not a qualification. The test or vindication of the qualities of science, cannot itself be a requirement. The peer review process is also subject to politics and bias, which I do not believe negates something as science (there is a subjective nature to it). There is at least one study, which won a Nobel prize in science, which was rejected by peer review. As well, a number of Nobel prize winners who denounce the peer review process. I understand the benefit of peer review publications, to provide a collection of science which should be able to be cited and used by others. However the system does have issues, and its reliability has been questioned.
Creationism does provide scientific information and draws a conclusion from them. Some are better than others, and some do ignore data (which at this point, I think you are leaving science, and merely using science. The Reasons to Believe ministries is in the process of creating a Biblical Creation Model, which they claim will meet the criteria such that you have cited previously. They believe that the information from scripture can be used to create a scientific model, that is both testable, and makes predictions. This is as opposed to the intelligent design community which sticks strictly to what can be claimed from scientific research, and believes that the evidence is best explained by an intelligent cause/agent. Many of the claims are specific and falsifiable, The criticism is that they do not have a specific model explaining how. Peer reviewed papers have been published by the intelligent design community (which I'm sure that you are aware of), but in my opinion they are not that strong, towards the overall case. And I would agree, that this is because of the lack of a specific model and it is more of an inference based on evidence.
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thank you for the definition. According to what you and TRS have given here, I would agree, that creationism and intelligent design do not qualify as science. From what I gather from the two posts, there is a focus on a model, which can be tested and verified or falsified. In Creationism and Intelligent design, I would describe them as presenting evidence, and making an inference from the evidence. The evidence is gathered using scientific principles and may be falsified. But it does not falsify a model, which can be repeated. In my opinion, this is a fairly restrictive definition, and would restrict many of the investigative sciences. For instance, I do not think that common descent evolution would meet these requirements as I have understood them. I would even question if evolutionary change and variation of species which is almost universally accepted, could meet the specificity which I believe is implied here.
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So far, while I believe the definition is restrictive, I don't necessarily disagree with it. It was recently said here, that many in the forum work in science, and according to this definition given, I believe this would be an overstatement. Both of you mentioned peer review publication as a qualification or quality of science. On this point, I would disagree. I believe there was science before the peer review process. Also, I see peer review and acceptance as an acknowledgement or test, of science not a qualification. The test or vindication of the qualities of science, cannot itself be a requirement. The peer review process is also subject to politics and bias, which I do not believe negates something as science (there is a subjective nature to it). There is at least one study, which won a Nobel prize in science, which was rejected by peer review. As well, a number of Nobel prize winners who denounce the peer review process. I understand the benefit of peer review publications, to provide a collection of science which should be able to be cited and used by others. However the system does have issues, and its reliability has been questioned.
Absolutely. When there is a system to be gamed, some assholes will game it. There are clear problems with the peer review process, but to scrap the whole system that works really well because there are a few bad apples would be ludicrous. Rather, you attempt to make the system harder to game.
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Creationism does provide scientific information and draws a conclusion from them. Some are better than others, and some do ignore data (which at this point, I think you are leaving science, and merely using science. The Reasons to Believe ministries is in the process of creating a Biblical Creation Model, which they claim will meet the criteria such that you have cited previously. They believe that the information from scripture can be used to create a scientific model, that is both testable, and makes predictions. This is as opposed to the intelligent design community which sticks strictly to what can be claimed from scientific research, and believes that the evidence is best explained by an intelligent cause/agent. Many of the claims are specific and falsifiable, The criticism is that they do not have a specific model explaining how. Peer reviewed papers have been published by the intelligent design community (which I'm sure that you are aware of), but in my opinion they are not that strong, towards the overall case. And I would agree, that this is because of the lack of a specific model and it is more of an inference based on evidence.
You're going to have to give some examples eventually. I know I've asked more than 5 times, and yet you are still not wanting to give us some examples of creationists "using science" (now that you've shifted the goalposts that-a-way.)
What scientific information are creationists drawing conclusions from? Why are you so loath to show us this. You've asserted it 20 times in this thread. Time to pony up.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thank you for the definition. According to what you and TRS have given here, I would agree, that creationism and intelligent design do not qualify as science. From what I gather from the two posts, there is a focus on a model, which can be tested and verified or falsified. In Creationism and Intelligent design, I would describe them as presenting evidence, and making an inference from the evidence. The evidence is gathered using scientific principles and may be falsified. But it does not falsify a model, which can be repeated. In my opinion, this is a fairly restrictive definition, and would restrict many of the investigative sciences. For instance, I do not think that common descent evolution would meet these requirements as I have understood them. I would even question if evolutionary change and variation of species which is almost universally accepted, could meet the specificity which I believe is implied here.
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So far, while I believe the definition is restrictive, I don't necessarily disagree with it. It was recently said here, that many in the forum work in science, and according to this definition given, I believe this would be an overstatement. Both of you mentioned peer review publication as a qualification or quality of science. On this point, I would disagree. I believe there was science before the peer review process. Also, I see peer review and acceptance as an acknowledgement or test, of science not a qualification. The test or vindication of the qualities of science, cannot itself be a requirement. The peer review process is also subject to politics and bias, which I do not believe negates something as science (there is a subjective nature to it). There is at least one study, which won a Nobel prize in science, which was rejected by peer review. As well, a number of Nobel prize winners who denounce the peer review process. I understand the benefit of peer review publications, to provide a collection of science which should be able to be cited and used by others. However the system does have issues, and its reliability has been questioned.
Absolutely. When there is a system to be gamed, some assholes will game it. There are clear problems with the peer review process, but to scrap the whole system that works really well because there are a few bad apples would be ludicrous. Rather, you attempt to make the system harder to game.
(October 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Creationism does provide scientific information and draws a conclusion from them. Some are better than others, and some do ignore data (which at this point, I think you are leaving science, and merely using science. The Reasons to Believe ministries is in the process of creating a Biblical Creation Model, which they claim will meet the criteria such that you have cited previously. They believe that the information from scripture can be used to create a scientific model, that is both testable, and makes predictions. This is as opposed to the intelligent design community which sticks strictly to what can be claimed from scientific research, and believes that the evidence is best explained by an intelligent cause/agent. Many of the claims are specific and falsifiable, The criticism is that they do not have a specific model explaining how. Peer reviewed papers have been published by the intelligent design community (which I'm sure that you are aware of), but in my opinion they are not that strong, towards the overall case. And I would agree, that this is because of the lack of a specific model and it is more of an inference based on evidence.
You're going to have to give some examples eventually. I know I've asked more than 5 times, and yet you are still not wanting to give us some examples of creationists "using science" (now that you've shifted the goalposts that-a-way.)
What scientific information are creationists drawing conclusions from? Why are you so loath to show us this. You've asserted it 20 times in this thread. Time to pony up.
I am somewhat familiar with the Lenski E. Coli experiement. I don't think that it would fit the definition which you gave (it is not specific eneough). For instance, if I were to repeat the experiment and failed to come up with the same results would it falsify or nullify the model and conclusion? Although some research in directed mutagenesis may indicate that it is repeatable although not random. Either way, this does not provide a model for evolutionary change, and I don't think would falsify it. This doesn't mean that evolutionary change did not occur, only that under your definition it is not science.
I have refrained from providing examples of science in creationism and I entered the conversation more so in regards to what is science and inconsistency I see in defining it. I don't think it is unreasonable to define the criteria you are asking me to meet. And under your previous definition, I agreed, that it did not meet that criteria. I also pointed out some other things that under that definition which do not meet the requirements you gave.
I also asked you if common descent evolution is science, and if you could give me an example similar to what you are looking for, to show that it is science. And you didn't answer, but I keep going with the conversation and do not bring it up every two posts. Frankly, I'm not concerned with if creationism or I.D. is science or not. I don't think that saying that it is pseudo-science speaks in any way to it not being true or representative of reality. It only speaks to how the conclusion was reached. So, if you want to have a restrictive view of what is science, I have no issue, but only ask that you apply it consistantly.
(October 26, 2015 at 11:57 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Huggy, that is some far-fetched shit, son.
How is what i'm saying far fetched, when you belive the bible to be a fairy-tale in the first place?
Mostly because you went far and away from the fairy tale as is.
Hermaphrodite Adam... fucking Christ man.
Shit. Rule 34 will take effect somewhere down the road now.
(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
![[Image: teach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.joeydevilla.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fteach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg)
![[Image: bbb59Ce.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2Fbbb59Ce.gif)
