How can science objectively consider creation? (rejecting, Earth, tradition, beliefs)

[author@ptgbook.org]

Science is more than a field of knowledge. It is also a culture, a community, and a way of thinking, and the foundation of science is the scientific method. To be accepted by the community, a scientist is expected to follow the scientific method in his or her work, and any reasoning or explanation outside of the scientific method is rejected.

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

So a scientist, in his work, research, and writing as a scientist, cannot even consider the possibility of a supernatural creation of life, because even to consider that as a possibility would violate the scientific method. So he has no choice but to try to fit the evidence into the evolutionary framework. He is required to be biased against creation even before he looks at the evidence, and he has no choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms. If a scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even succeed in publishing it.

But you cannot objectively prove something by only looking at one side of an issue. If you are really after truth, you have to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias. But scientists, in their work as scientists, cannot do that with evolution. The scientific method forbids it, as does peer pressure of the scientific community.

Evolutionary science cannot be proved. You cannot prove it with formal logic without first stating as an unproved premise that there is no supernatural cause for the existance of life. That is not proof.

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

The scientific method works fine in explaining everyday processes because God does not ordinarily interfere with natural law. God wants man to be able to work with matter and energy and to be able to control his environment to a degree, and for man to do this, physical processes must follow predictable laws in our day-to-day lives. But that does not mean that God did not create the universe, or life itself. When the scientific method is user in investigating the origins of things, it is being used for a purpose for which it is ill-suited.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

If you are really after truth, you have to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias.

Excellent. Give us an objective basis - an intersubjectively verifiable methodology - to distinguish between your faith and delusion - or between your creation myth and that of any other religion.

Your statement is, at best, a clever con: the 'two sides' are evidence and IBE on the one hand and unevidenced fantasy on the other.

[michel]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Science is more than a field of knowledge. It is also a culture, a community, and a way of thinking, and the foundation of science is the scientific method. To be accepted by the community, a scientist is expected to follow the scientific method in his or her work, and any reasoning or explanation outside of the scientific method is rejected.

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

So a scientist, in his work, research, and writing as a scientist, cannot even consider the possibility of a supernatural creation of life, because even to consider that as a possibility would violate the scientific method. So he has no choice but to try to fit the evidence into the evolutionary framework. He is required to be biased against creation even before he looks at the evidence, and he has no choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms. If a scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even succeed in publishing it.

But you cannot objectively prove something by only looking at one side of an issue. If you are really after truth, you have to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias. But scientists, in their work as scientists, cannot do that with evolution. The scientific method forbids it, as does peer pressure of the scientific community.

Evolutionary science cannot be proved. You cannot prove it with formal logic without first stating as an unproved premise that there is no supernatural cause for the existance of life. That is not proof.

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

The scientific method works fine in explaining everyday processes because God does not ordinarily interfere with natural law. God wants man to be able to work with matter and energy and to be able to control his environment to a degree, and for man to do this, physical processes must follow predictable laws in our day-to-day lives. But that does not mean that God did not create the universe, or life itself. When the scientific method is user in investigating the origins of things, it is being used for a purpose for which it is ill-suited.

According to Wikipedia,

Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[1] The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on the meaning of science in the latter sense.
Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge that explains observable events in nature as results of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions

.

Whilst I believe that God is responsible for the creation of life, your

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

I can immagine will upset our agnostic and Atheist friends on this forum;

Your

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

is perfectly correct, however.

As it happens, I believe both in creation, and in evolution; there is just far too much evidence in favour of evolution to deny it exists; even in my lifetime, Nature has exhibited evidence that Global warming is affecting the animal and the insect world; creatures are changing their 'habits' vbecause of the changing climates.

Personally, I believe, as did Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", and that is a path, I believe, the scientists refuse (because of their methodology) to go down. That is where Science has it's Achille's Heel.

[Willamena]

Science cannot objectively consider the Creation because it is a supernatural event.

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

Not so. There is nothing in the scientific method that addresses the supernatural. Science does not dismiss the supernatural, it simply cannot address it at all because it looks at empirical phenomena (not because it looks at phenomena empirically).

Take, for instance, the formation (creation) of an object. If it appears out of thin air, it may or may not be supernatural; however, the scientific explanation is the one that explains it as part of the chain of empirical events. There is already precedent for the natural appearance of things from 'thin air' on the subatomic level, so there is a foundation on which to develop a hypothesis to investigate its appearance.

The supernatural explanation is "god did it," and ends there, so there is no investigation done, and nothing learned in the process. The scientific explanation, on the other hand, never ends (whether or not there is a God).

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Evolutionary science cannot be proved. You cannot prove it with formal logic without first stating as an unproved premise that there is no supernatural cause for the existance of life. That is not proof.

Actually, nothing is ever proved. Science can only disprove things, and go with the Holmesian "what remains must be correct". Evolution is the best explanation science provides at the moment. That doesn't mean it's true; it may be supplanted by a better explanation someday.

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

With this statement, in order for it to be scientific and true, you must first demonstrate that a God exists.

[Willamena]

The religious world view is of an invisible world that is supportive of the visible world. That which we cannot know which is supportive of that which we know. Science literally means "knowing," or that which we know. Against that which we cannot know, it is helpless and useless.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

This might depend on how you would define the term “supernatural”. Merriam-Webster defines it as “relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”. In other words the supernatural is that which cannot be studied empirically. Science is a method of empirical study. You cannot study something empirically that cannot be studied empirically (can I get a “duh!” for that one).

Does this mean that science is biased against creation? Not necessarily. It simply means that science is not equipped to discover supernatural explanations. The flip side of which is that science is not able to disprove the supernatural either. And it certainly does not mean that scientists are biased. There are many scientists who hold personal religious and/or supernatural beliefs. But that does not make those beliefs scientific.

Just because science is unable to study consider the supernatural, does not mean that humans are unable to consider it. I agree with you that we should consider all sides of an issue. We are free to philosophize, to pray, to meditate, to study religious scriptures, to go to church etc. There are countless ways in which we can investigate the supernatural, but unless the supernatural leaves an empirical trace, science is not seem one of them.

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

It always amazes me how many religious people are content to denigrate the concept of faith if they think they can strike a blow against evolution by doing so. There is nothing in the science of evolution that states that “God” does not exist, and it does not ever say that “God” did not create life. Those are supernatural suppositions and science has nothing to say about them one-way or the other. If on the other hand you say that God created life 6000 years ago, then science may respond by saying that there is evidence that indicates that life has existed on this planet for much much longer than that. That is the current indications of the evidence, if new evidence is discovered that shows it to be otherwise, then science will adjust accordingly. It has nothing to do with faith.

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

So a scientist, in his work, research, and writing as a scientist, cannot even consider the possibility of a supernatural creation of life, because even to consider that as a possibility would violate the scientific method. So he has no choice but to try to fit the evidence into the evolutionary framework. He is required to be biased against creation even before he looks at the evidence, and he has no choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms. If a scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even succeed in publishing it.

A scientist is not required to fit the evidence into an evolutionary framework. The scientist is free to develop any kind of theory that will explain the evidence. But a supernatural theory simply cannot do that, not scientifically. If a scientist were to develop a framework that accounted for the evidence as well or better than evolution, this would be seen as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of human history. And this is one of the reasons so many people have tried to do just that. But at this time evolution is the only scientific theory we have that can explain the diversity of life that we see.


Although science is ill suited to discover evidence of the supernatural, it is completely suited to discover evidence of the origins of life.

[bender118]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Evolutionary science cannot be proved.

sure it can. A dog cell has mutated to an invasive pathogen in one generation. If that isn't evolution, then what is?
also, plenty of experiments have shown that the substances found in the atmosphere of early earth, when struck with lightning, form organic compounds which become cells which become multi celled creatures which formed sponges and jellyfish ect ect ect

[YmirGF]

How can science objectively consider creation?

Beats me. I wasn't aware that there was anything mentioned in creationism worthy of investigation. Has something changed in the last year?

You know I have been thinking, I am not totally opposed to teaching Industrial Design or whatever it is called this week, in school. I would be willing to let it into Creative Writing classes. Hmm, then again, it is not especially creative, nor is it very well written, so that might not be a great idea. The poor blighters can hardly read as it is, no sense complicating things.

[standing_on_one_foot]

Originally Posted by author@ptgbook.org

Science is more than a field of knowledge. It is also a culture, a community, and a way of thinking, and the foundation of science is the scientific method. To be accepted by the community, a scientist is expected to follow the scientific method in his or her work, and any reasoning or explanation outside of the scientific method is rejected.

An imporant principle in the scientific method is that no supernatural explanation for physical events or processes are to be considered a possibility.

So a scientist, in his work, research, and writing as a scientist, cannot even consider the possibility of a supernatural creation of life, because even to consider that as a possibility would violate the scientific method. So he has no choice but to try to fit the evidence into the evolutionary framework. He is required to be biased against creation even before he looks at the evidence, and he has no choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms. If a scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even succeed in publishing it.

But you cannot objectively prove something by only looking at one side of an issue. If you are really after truth, you have to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias. But scientists, in their work as scientists, cannot do that with evolution. The scientific method forbids it, as does peer pressure of the scientific community.

Evolutionary science cannot be proved. You cannot prove it with formal logic without first stating as an unproved premise that there is no supernatural cause for the existance of life. That is not proof.

Evolutionary science is a faith. It is a faith that God did not create life.

The scientific method works fine in explaining everyday processes because God does not ordinarily interfere with natural law. God wants man to be able to work with matter and energy and to be able to control his environment to a degree, and for man to do this, physical processes must follow predictable laws in our day-to-day lives. But that does not mean that God did not create the universe, or life itself. When the scientific method is user in investigating the origins of things, it is being used for a purpose for which it is ill-suited.

No...a scientist could go against evolution, with evidence. He or she just couldn't propose something lacking evidence or testability...and hope to be taken seriously, anyway. Now what you're mentioning up there is one of the cardinal sins of science (changing data to fit your needs). It happens, yes, more than we'd like, but to accuse everyone of that on such a large scale?

And science doesn't claim to be ultimately objective in the first place. It's understood that science only applies inasfar as the universe obeys certain rules and is consistent with observation. Anything outside science's realm of authority is, by your own arguements, not something science particularly needs to comment on (existence of a soul or afterlife, that sort of thing). It can't prove or disprove them However, origins are something science can certainly take an interest in. Why shouldn't it? Because the evidence doesn't necessarily back up traditional religious claims?

And for the record, good grief, science is not a field of knowledge in the first place. It's a process which results in knowledge. Scientific method is science. If science is a faith in anything at all, it's a faith that the universe can be consistently observed and tested. It's a faith, sure, fine, most human endeavers involve that, but putting it in terms of religion seems every bit as unfair as trying to put religion in terms of science. Heck, it's a little like saying Christianity is pagan, since it involves disbelief in many gods. Technically true, perhaps, but a bit besides the point.