Pranking Christian call show

[Captain Colostomy]

Yes, the thread lives on. However, Statler's argument is deader than disco...he just hasn't the heart to throw out the leisure suit yet.

[Bad Writer]

P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
P2. Creationism is a methodology that explains the natural Universe.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.

Valid and sound!

I'm not the one that needs convincing (though this in no way denotes that I'm convinced). Propose this to the scientific community, and prepare to get that Nobel prize.

Scientists have numerous...presuppositions; they are not established by science itself.

Then name one that touts these presuppositions as absolute fact. Only creationists do this, which is a good indicator as to why the experts are hesitant to even consider it science.

Then scientifically demonstrate that…

[1] Reality exists
[2] Reality is knowable
[3] Your senses accurately perceive reality
[4] Your memory is generally reliable
[5] Inductive reasoning works
[6] There is regularity in Nature
[7] There has always been regularity in Nature
[8] There will continue to be regularity in Nature
[9] Matter does not exit and re-enter existence
[10] Contradictions do not exist
[11] Causality exists
[12] The scientist’s ability to reason is trustworthy
[13] Other minds perceive reality the same as yours does.

I'm not even going to pretend here; I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that since science doesn't proclaim anything as absolute fact (only theories made up of accepted ideas and observations) that the farthest any of these proofs will go is as a working theory.

Of course, you have some valid concerns here, and as a simple non-scientist I'll entertain you for a moment and talk to these points that I have numbered for ease of reference.

1. If there was no reality, then I don't think we would be interacting in any way, shape, or form. The only other option from reality would best be described, as far as I know, as non-reality, or non-existence. For things to exist, I think there needs to be a reality.
2. Because of our intersection interactions, reality is knowable because of corroborating evidence to support its existence. I know there's at least this reality. Whether or not there are others is unproven for the time being, and saying that there are other realities is immature and possibly inaccurate.
3. Saying that our senses accurately depict reality is not my realm of expertise. I will say that even if our own senses are in some way malfunctioning, such as a color-blind person's eyes not being able to detect certain aspects of the spectrum, that humans have since developed instruments that aid in giving us extra information about our environment or reality. Therefore, even a color-blind person can be convinced of the existence of other colors due to demonstrating the readings of a spectrometer or similar device.
4. I'm not certain that anyone's memories are ever completely reliable. Perhaps someone with an eidetic memory would be the closest we can get to observing a person with a very reliable memory, though even that probably isn't as perfect as preserving information by carving it into stone or putting it into digital format.
5. Both Deductive and Inductive (bottom-up vs. top-down) reasoning have their merits. I won't lie that I'm not an expert in either, but I found an article that might be helpful, as it explains both and gives some good examples.
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning
6. Regularity is a pretty broad term to be used in association with Nature. I would say that certain things are regular, and there is much that is not, but it all depends on the context of the term; for instance, certain laws in nature stay the same: the orbit of the earth around the sun, the laws of gravity, and other such known phenomena. However, the irregularity of nature would most likely be in regards to the process of evolution and other changing aspects of the known universe. One could also argue that the fact that some things are unknown is a very regular thing; or rather one should expect the unexpected. If this answer doesn't sit well with you, then I urge you to clarify what you mean by "regular".
7. As I still don't know exactly what you mean by "regularity", I'm going to answer this the best I can. The fact is, we don't know the past. Nor can we predict the future. What we see is what we makes observations on. We expect that certain things about nature have been constant throughout millenia, and we expect the same for times to come. If there was ever something acting upon the universe in an irregular way in the past, we can probably never know, but we will find out in the future if this ever holds to be true.
8. I think I answered this one in #7.
9. Matter exiting and entering into existence can only be discussed in terms of what we think existence to be. If matter enters our reality when it wasn't there beforehand, this does not mean that it started to exist; rather it was most likely always there, but not in any way we could observe. Lawrence Krauss talks about this at length in his lecture "A Universe from Nothing", and he's much more articulate about it than I am.
10. Contradictions do exist in that someone can contradict his or herself in words, but when talking in terms of observable facts, I think they do not. Perhaps you can prove how they do exist?
11. Causality, or the principle that everything has a cause, is something I'm wont to discuss because I don't think there's enough evidence to prove that this is correct in every case. I can give you the good ol' Atheist rhetoric on this one by saying "I don't know". That's not to say that I don't care, but if we're going to head into Kalam Cosmological theory, then I'll simply say that if we do accept causality, what brings you to the conclusion that the cause (for the beginning of the Universe) needs to be a god?
12. A scientist's ability to reason can either be trustworthy or not, and for that we don't accept their work on their word alone. I'm pretty certain that's why there's peer review.
13. On this one, I don't know. I'll refer you back to my answer on #3, as it explains how we use extra-sensory equipment to come up with intersecting observations on reality.

[downbeatplumb]

It fits the definition of science, so therefore it is science. That’s pretty simple. The fact you do not like creationism is utterly irrelevant.

Why creationism isn't science

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[13] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

[Statler Waldorf]

Congratulations, Statler. You have convincingly demonstrated the viability of calling your position a pseudoscience.

Cookie?

By using the definition of the term science? Right. Yes, a cookie would be nice though.

Yes, the thread lives on. However, Statler's argument is deader than disco...he just hasn't the heart to throw out the leisure suit yet.

As of right now, my argument stands un-refuted. I am not the least bit surprised that you have not addressed it.

I'm not the one that needs convincing (though this in no way denotes that I'm convinced). Propose this to the scientific community, and prepare to get that Nobel prize.

No proposing needed, there are thousands of members of the scientific community who are creationists.

Then name one that touts these presuppositions as absolute fact. Only creationists do this, which is a good indicator as to why the experts are hesitant to even consider it science.

All scientists assume their presuppositions are true and do not question them scientifically (to do so is impossible), that’s the definition of a presupposition sir.

---

Then scientifically demonstrate that…

[1] Reality exists
[2] Reality is knowable
[3] Your senses accurately perceive reality
[4] Your memory is generally reliable
[5] Inductive reasoning works
[6] There is regularity in Nature
[7] There has always been regularity in Nature
[8] There will continue to be regularity in Nature
[9] Matter does not exit and re-enter existence
[10] Contradictions do not exist
[11] Causality exists
[12] The scientist’s ability to reason is trustworthy
[13] Other minds perceive reality the same as yours does.

---

I'm not even going to pretend here; I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that since science doesn't proclaim anything as absolute fact (only theories made up of accepted ideas and observations) that the farthest any of these proofs will go is as a working theory.

Is science’s proclamation that nothing is claimed as an absolute fact itself an absolute fact? You cannot get around this, there are certain claims that are assumed to be absolutely true by science. I gave you a list of 13 of them.

Of course, you have some valid concerns here, and as a simple non-scientist I'll entertain you for a moment and talk to these points that I have numbered for ease of reference.

Okie dokie.

1. If there was no reality, then I don't think we would be interacting in any way, shape, or form. The only other option from reality would best be described, as far as I know, as non-reality, or non-existence. For things to exist, I think there needs to be a reality.

How do you know we are interacting at all? Could it not all be illusory? I think you are presupposing that our interactions are occurring and part of the reality that you’re also assuming exists.

2. Because of our intersection interactions, reality is knowable because of corroborating evidence to support its existence. I know there's at least this reality. Whether or not there are others is unproven for the time being, and saying that there are other realities is immature and possibly inaccurate.

Evidence? How do you know any such evidence exists in reality? If reality were not knowable then you could not make appeals to such evidence, so by doing so you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. Scientists presuppose that reality is knowable.

3. Saying that our senses accurately depict reality is not my realm of expertise. I will say that even if our own senses are in some way malfunctioning, such as a color-blind person's eyes not being able to detect certain aspects of the spectrum, that humans have since developed instruments that aid in giving us extra information about our environment or reality. Therefore, even a color-blind person can be convinced of the existence of other colors due to demonstrating the readings of a spectrometer or similar device.

How do you know such instruments exist without using your senses? How did they build such instruments without also using their senses?

4. I'm not certain that anyone's memories are ever completely reliable. Perhaps someone with an eidetic memory would be the closest we can get to observing a person with a very reliable memory, though even that probably isn't as perfect as preserving information by carving it into stone or putting it into digital format.

I didn’t say totally reliable, I said generally reliable. Science would be impossible if we did not have generally reliable memories, so I am asking you how do you scientifically prove that we do possess such memories?

5. Both Deductive and Inductive (bottom-up vs. top-down) reasoning have their merits. I won't lie that I'm not an expert in either, but I found an article that might be helpful, as it explains both and gives some good examples.
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Thank you, but I already knew what they were. I am asking you how do you scientifically prove that either of them work? Seems to me that you have to assume they both work before you can even do science.

6. Regularity is a pretty broad term to be used in association with Nature. I would say that certain things are regular, and there is much that is not, but it all depends on the context of the term; for instance, certain laws in nature stay the same: the orbit of the earth around the sun, the laws of gravity, and other such known phenomena. However, the irregularity of nature would most likely be in regards to the process of evolution and other changing aspects of the known universe. One could also argue that the fact that some things are unknown is a very regular thing; or rather one should expect the unexpected. If this answer doesn't sit well with you, then I urge you to clarify what you mean by "regular".

I want to know how you can scientifically prove that such regularities exist; you merely asserted that they do.

7. As I still don't know exactly what you mean by "regularity", I'm going to answer this the best I can. The fact is, we don't know the past. Nor can we predict the future. What we see is what we makes observations on. We expect that certain things about nature have been constant throughout millenia, and we expect the same for times to come. If there was ever something acting upon the universe in an irregular way in the past, we can probably never know, but we will find out in the future if this ever holds to be true.

So you are conceding that you cannot scientifically demonstrate that regularities in Nature existed throughout the Universe's history? Then are theories such as the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution therefore unscientific because they require the assumption that such regularities existed even though it cannot be scientifically demonstrated that this assumption is true?

9. Matter exiting and entering into existence can only be discussed in terms of what we think existence to be. If matter enters our reality when it wasn't there beforehand, this does not mean that it started to exist; rather it was most likely always there, but not in any way we could observe. Lawrence Krauss talks about this at length in his lecture.

So the matter still existed even though it was not detectable by scientific means? How can you scientifically demonstrate that something exists that is not scientifically detectible?

10. Contradictions do exist in that someone can contradict his or herself in words, but when talking in terms of observable facts, I think they do not. Perhaps you can prove how they do exist?

The burden of proof is on you, you’re the one claiming science can demonstrate every claim that scientists believe is true. Scientists believe the claim- “a contradiction cannot exist” is true; so I am wanting to know how you can scientifically demonstrate that claim is true. Or do scientists presuppose that claim is true?

11. Causality, or the principle that everything has a cause, is something I'm wont to discuss because I don't think there's enough evidence to prove that this is correct in every case. I can give you the good ol' Atheist rhetoric on this one by saying "I don't know". That's not to say that I don't care, but if we're going to head into Kalam Cosmological theory, then I'll simply say that if we do accept causality, what brings you to the conclusion that the cause (for the beginning of the Universe) needs to be a god?

I am not talking about the claim that everything requires a cause. I am merely talking about the claim, “’A’ causes ‘B’”. Science requires causality, but I am asking how you can even prove that causality exists scientifically? Or do scientists merely presuppose that causality exists?

12. A scientist's ability to reason can either be trustworthy or not, and for that we don't accept their work on their word alone. I'm pretty certain that's why there's peer review.

You merely shifted the question from, “How do we know that we can trust Scientist A’s ability to reason” to “How do we know that we can trust Scientist B’s ability to reason (who is peer-reviewing Scientist A’s work). You can never give a valid reason as to why you can trust your ability to reason, it’s a presupposition. Scientists all have it.

13. On this one, I don't know. I'll refer you back to my answer on #3, as it explains how we use extra-sensory equipment to come up with intersecting observations on reality.

My response to number 3 still applies here.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

Wikipedia is a user-generated site. How do you know who is in the scientific community without first knowing who the scientists are? You’re begging the question. According to the definition of the term “science”, creationists are doing science and are therefore scientists.

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[13] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

We do not allow people with law degrees to determine what is and is not good science for us.

[Bad Writer]

Ah, I see the issue with this entire post.

SW, you think that since there are scientists that are creationists, that creationism is a science. Non-sequitur notwithstanding, you're just beating a dead horse with this tripe.

Also, I really appreciate your attempt at twisting my words. I never said that science proposes absolute fact, but it does have to make some assumptions based on observations to come up with any theories. Whether or not these theories are complete is up to new evidence we uncover in years to come.

[Captain Colostomy]

TL;DR. Sorry, Stat.

You're holding a candle whose flame has long been snuffed. Continued harping that it is still lit doesn't necessitate further responses from me...those more learned than I have already shed enough light on creationism's weaknesses.

Hell, you may as well be pushing a flat earth.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah, I see the issue with this entire post.

SW, you think that since there are scientists that are creationists, that creationism is a science. Non-sequitur notwithstanding, you're just beating a dead horse with this tripe.

That’s not my argument.

Also, I really appreciate your attempt at twisting my words. I never said that science proposes absolute fact, but it does have to make some assumptions based on observations to come up with any theories. Whether or not these theories are complete is up to new evidence we uncover in years to come.

You see the problem is, I have your words available to me, and you specifically stated that scientists presuppose nothing. Now, after I presented over a dozen presuppositions that all scientists possess you’re now walking that claim back. The point is, you cannot discount creationism as a science simply for possessing presuppositions when you’re allowing other sciences to possess presuppositions. The real kicker is that the creationists’ ultimate presupposition makes sense of all of the other presuppositions held by other scientists, it’s a far more cogent conceptual scheme.

TL;DR. Sorry, Stat.

One sentence was too long for you to read?

You're holding a candle whose flame has long been snuffed.

Fallacy of the faulty analogy.

Continued harping that it is still lit doesn't necessitate further responses from me...those more learned than I have already shed enough light on creationism's weaknesses.

You’ve pointed to nothing in the actual definition of the term science that would disqualify creationism, so it still stands as a science today.

Hell, you may as well be pushing a flat earth.

Fallacy of the faulty analogy.

[Bad Writer]

Creationists practicing science are not practicing something called creation science. You made that part up.

Hypotheses are proposed, and then they are proven and become theories. Did your hypothesis that god created the universe ever become a proven theory? That's an accomplishment that would warrant the Nobel Prize...and yet this hasn't happened yet. By all means, SW, get cracking on that one.

[Statler Waldorf]

Creationists practicing science are not practicing something called creation science. You made that part up.

Creationists practicing creation science are still practicing science; stop with the false distinctions.

Hypotheses are proposed, and then they are proven and become theories.

Science does not deal with proof, it uses induction.

Did your hypothesis that god created the universe ever become a proven theory?

That’s a presupposition, much like “Natural laws have been regular in the past.” Creationists develop hypotheses and test them.

That's an accomplishment that would warrant the Nobel Prize...and yet this hasn't happened yet. By all means, SW, get cracking on that one.

Something has to win the Nobel Prize to be considered great science? I could have a field day with that silly made up criteria.

[Bad Writer]

I think proving the existence of a deity by means of science would certainly turn a few heads. However, you would need to first demonstrate that your god exists. After that any presupposition of his meddling in the creation of the universe can properly be explored. You'll have to come up with some mechanism by which this god creates, of course, if you're going to do this scientifically. After all, like you said, science deals with testing hypotheses (thank you for correcting me on that one).