The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

I admit on further reading he does go on to online a different primary viewpoint on the 'Distant Starlight Problem'. It is worth noting however that at no point does he admit any of the many logical flaws present in the argument or put up any case against it. The fact he is willing to accept it as a theory without evidence and a huge implausibility at its root is of concern.

Well I have seen lectures by Lisle where he does object to this viewpoint, but he does it on theological grounds. You can't really object to it scientifically because if it were in fact valid we would observe exactly what we do observe about the cosmos today. I don't think there is anything to be concerned with there.

We can argue from varying viewpoints untill the proverbial cows show up Statler but the argument you & Mr Lisle are proposing misrepresents a key issue. There is no sound reason for believing that secular scientists allow theie worldview to effect their science. Throughout my education I have always been taught to address my own bias and mistakes openly and as such repress them from my findings, this is a practice common to all student of science.

You cannot conduct any science without some form of pre-suppositions. So you cannot prevent your pre-suppositions from effecting your science. I mean afterall, "I can trust my senses", "I can think rationally", and "logic is real" are all pre-suppositions that must be held before anyone can conduct science. Evolutionists will often admit to their pre-suppositions, even the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin said, ‘We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’. So no matter what the evidnece seems to suggest he will never allow a divine explaination. So he will just derrive "rescue mechanisms" to explain away the evidence that does point to a Creator. There was even an article in Nature a few years ago that said that even if all the evidence pointed to intelligent design, it could never be a scientific conclusion. Ruling out possible explainations before examining the evidence is done by everyone, the Creation guys are just more intellectually honest about their pre-suppositions. I applaud their honesty.

What Mr Lisle continously asserts is that at university he became aware of how scientists worldviews affect their studies; note that not once have I seen any corobatory evidence, no surveys and no figures. I have noticed your 'stories' about friends and a few refuted claims of bias however, they are far from conclusive with regards a large scale issue in the academic community.

Refuted claims? I don't think anyone has refuted my claims of mine to date. Everything I have posted dealing with the issue of Scientific Bias have been true stories and quotes. You may not choose to believe them, but I think this is just another example of how you let your bias effect your conclusions.

But this is the entire story is it Statler? The 'Evoloutionists' 'pre-suppositions' were based on the accumulated evidence of their, radiometric dating, archeaolgy etc ... Using this pre-existing information they made a judgement on red blood cells based on the fact they had not been seen before. When this was proved to be an exception to the current model, it was adapted. This is how science works.

What the creationists did was interpret the evidence within their pre-suppositions of a young-earth despite the fact that all the evidence accumulated by science points the other way and therfore summarily claim that they must be right. If you feel my interpretation is wrong here please let me know. You're more guilty of these logical fallacies you keep pointing out than anyone.

Well their pre-suppositions about radiometric dating and the like is a problem considering these methods only point to an old Earth if you use uniformitarian pre-suppositions. Which of course scripture says uniformitarianism is in error, so to asribe to this assumption is assuming scripture is false and is in itself assuming the proof. You are using assumptions that assume scripture is false to prove scripture is false? Not good. The Creationists can do very good science that uses these same dating methods to support their side. What the Scientists did in the Discovery article was just an example of how their pre-suppositions were effecting their interpretations. Trying to deny the results from being published was wrong though.

But this is just a story Statler. A CMI Geologist (Biased?) is attempting to prove that evolutionist has the same neccesity for pre-suppositions as him and so relates this story. I can't really speak as to the validity of the story so I'm not going to push the point any further.

So you are suggesting the Christian is lying? I have a tough time believing that someone who believes lying is wrong is lying, while someone like Richard Dawkins who has admitted he does not believe in good or evil is telling the truth. People rarely act in a manner contrary to their worldview, if a person believes lying is wrong they are far less likely to do it than someone who doesn't think there is a reason to not lie. I think you are just letting your pre-suppositions effect your conclusions when you assume the CMI geologist is lying just because you do not like what he says.

Unfortunately Statler I disagree. You keep saying that creationists always follow the scientific method, true?

Well tell me how it scientific to make sure that evry paper published agress with your viewpoint even down to the 'historical/grammatical details' of your beliefs (paraphrased from the Answers Research Journal Sumission Guidelines). It just isn't, they are simply saying that they will not entertain anything outside of their theory, not even subject ... just their theory.

Your claim that it is a 'Creation' journal and so would naturally only accept creation articles is void because the journal claims to be a technical journal for biology, geology, astrophysics etc ... So what they are doing is simply censoring the infromation they diseminate. In comparison the only guidelines for secular journals are in methodology and scientific practice. Please provide evidence if you want to argue this point.

As to your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' - Your might be right, it could have an excellent methodology but if you have not interpreted it within the context of the majority of the published literature or provide demostarble proof of why you are correct over them you would not be publsihed. Obviously Bible quotes would have no place in this literature (as they do in Answers) because the Bible is heavily disputed source of non-scientific nature. So using it as a point of evidence or interpretation is soley based on your worldview and would simply be begging the question.

Also, I can't believe you resorted to mocking the peer review system based on sporadic reports of possible bias. If it such a joke Statler, why do your people make such an effort to copy it?

Cheers

Sam

So you pretty much just said, "The only thing secular journals look at is Methodolgoy and Scientific Practice", but in the next paragraph you say that if a journal had good methodology but did not agree with everyone else it would get rejected? That makes no sense at all, how are we supposed to move science forward if we are not allowed to disagree with other Scientists? Science is not some club, it's a way of obtaining knowledge. Good science always is honest about its assumptions and shows how the data is interpreted using these assumptions. The Creation guys believe Scripture is valid, so of course they are going to say how they use scripture to interpret scientific observations. This is good science. You may not like it, that does not change the fact that they are following the methods Bacon developed. Develop a model, make predictioons using that model, devise an experiment to text your predictions, detail your conclusions. Believing that Methodolgocial Naturalism is the only proper science is actually rather naive in my humble opinion.
I am sure you are aware that a Technical Journal does not actually conduct research, it just publishes it. So when the Creation Journals say they are wanting to publish a particular kind of research they are doing nothing wrong.
I am actually reading through the technical work that was just published by a few CMI guys on accelerated radiometric decay. They made predictions, published their predictions so they had to stick to them, collected numerous samples, had the samples tested at a secular lab that was blind to their predictions, the results were in line with their initial predicted findings. This is good science and I would highly recommend you pick up a copy of the work.