Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

 

[Woberts]

"But God is outside your flawed human evidence!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

"But God is outside your flawed human evidence!"

That is okay, not discussing the evidence for or against a god. Though scientific theories and hypotheses are of course fair game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course facts might be a good idea to discuss too.

Facts, at least in the world of science, are merely confirmed observations.

 

[Jumi]

In my experience people who are opposed to scientific evidence mostly don't know science, while people who had adequate education in science usually don't have much to talk about regarding it. It might not be a conscious avoidance, they might not even have an idea of basic science outside of perhaps things they use in their profession.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my experience people who are opposed to scientific evidence mostly don't know science, while people who had adequate education in science usually don't have much to talk about regarding it. It might not be a conscious avoidance, they might not even have an idea of basic science outside of perhaps things they use in their profession.

I know. I started this thread because I hear all often the denial of evidence by creationists. Sometimes it appears that they avoid understanding the concept on purpose. Speaking of that it has been a half an hour and no participation by any creationists yet.

 

[YmirGF]

I know. I started this thread because I hear all often the denial of evidence by creationists. Sometimes it appears that they avoid understanding the concept on purpose. Speaking of that it has been a half an hour and no participation by any creationists yet.

If you are feeling especially masochistic you could wander into one of the several "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" threads. If you think Creationists can be unyielding, hang on...

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are feeling especially masochistic you could wander into one of the several "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" threads. If you think Creationists can be unyielding, hang on...

I well know that Muslims are past masters at reinterpreting their holy book. It makes the attempts of Christians that do that do the same look rather pathetic in comparison.

 

[Audie]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

 

[YmirGF]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

And what about alternate facts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

That can happen. Of course since we are discussing scientific evidence the starting point is a testable hypothesis. If a creationist brings up a testable hypothesis I will gladly discuss that too. Putting one's ideas to the test is at the very heart of science. If one cannot test an idea it is not wrong, it falls to the level of Not Even Wrong. In the sciences one learns from ones errors. If an idea cannot be tested then there is no way to learn from it and it is all but worthless in the sciences.

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe scientific evidence is a "concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding," as much as it's evidence they can't afford to admit to. Admitting to the validity of scientific evidence puts them in the bind of reconciling it with the assertions of creationism. So they're forced to disregard it, come up with silly arguments against it, or better yet, twist it so as to make evolution look bad. It's as if by showing evolution to be incorrect that by default creationism has to be right.
In fact, simply notice how quickly creationists will change any challenge to justify creationism into an attack on evolution by misusing the scientific evidence that supports it. Obfuscation, misstatements, and outright lying typically go hand in hand in the creationists attempt to denigrate evolution. Makes one wonder just how marvelous their vaunted Christian ethics truly are. Actually, we really know. Don't we. ;-) What have I heard it called? Oh yes, Lying for the Lord.

.

 

[YmirGF]

Oh yes, Lying for the Lord.

.

That would make a catchy slogan for a Christian bordello.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"

This entire phrase is needed to adequately describe scientific evidence (in addition to scientific evidence being empirical). There HAS to be a hypothesis or theory attached to the evidence or there isn't evidence.

For example, I have a hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer. The hypothesis is that smokers will have an increased rate of lung cancer. The data I have says that black rabbits weight more than white rabbits on average (p>0.05). That data is empirical, but is it evidence? No. The data can't be used to test the hypothesis, so it isn't evidence.

On top of that, the scientific hypothesis has to predict what one should observe if the hypothesis is false. This is what allows for the existence of evidence since it is possible for observations to prove the hypothesis false. A hypothesis that can incorporate any observation, no matter what it is, is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore can not be said to have evidence in its favor.

 

[Skwim]

That would make a catchy slogan for a Christian bordello.

An excellent name.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"

This entire phrase is needed to adequately describe scientific evidence (in addition to scientific evidence being empirical). There HAS to be a hypothesis or theory attached to the evidence or there isn't evidence.

For example, I have a hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer. The hypothesis is that smokers will have an increased rate of lung cancer. The data I have says that black rabbits weight more than white rabbits on average (p>0.05). That data is empirical, but is it evidence? No. The data can't be used to test the hypothesis, so it isn't evidence.

On top of that, the scientific hypothesis has to predict what one should observe if the hypothesis is false. This is what allows for the existence of evidence since it is possible for observations to prove the hypothesis false. A hypothesis that can incorporate any observation, no matter what it is, is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore can not be said to have evidence in its favor.

Exactly a Red Herring may be a fact. It may even be a scientific fact. But if it neither supports nor opposes a theory or hypothesis it is not scientific evidence in regards to that idea. And one of the huge failures of creationism is a failure to put their ideas in the from of a testable hypothesis. That is why I am not afraid to say that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. With no testable hypothesis they have no evidence. Though if one proposes a testable hypothesis I will gladly take a look at it. Sadly for most creationists the idea of being proven wrong is just as great as their fear of evolution.

 

[PureX]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

Scientific evidence is all well and good when we are considering the viability of a theory of physical interaction. It is of very little use, however, in considering an individual human's subjective experience and understanding 'reality'. Mostly, because reality encompasses far more than mere physical interactions, and far less than the whole of what is. And because individual experiences and understanding of reality are unique even if the reality being experienced, isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific evidence is all well and good when we are considering the viability of a theory of physical interaction. It is of very little use, however, in considering an individual human's subjective experience and understanding 'reality'. Mostly, because reality encompasses far more than mere physical interactions, and far less than the while of what is. And because individual experiences and understanding of reality are unique even if the reality being experienced, isn't.

It depends upon what one means by "reality". At any rate this is not about evidence for or against a god or gods. It is simply about the concept of evidence, and specifically scientific evidence.

Many creationists in effect take themselves out of the debate by trying to claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That is obviously wrong. They may disagree with the conclusions one derives form the evidence, but to say that it does not exist is a clear error on their part and they automatically lose the debate when they make such an obviously fallacious claim.

 

[YmirGF]

It depends upon what one means by "reality". At any rate this is not about evidence for or against a god or gods. It is simply about the concept of evidence, and specifically scientific evidence.

Many creationists in effect take themselves out of the debate by trying to claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That is obviously wrong. They may disagree with the conclusions one derives form the evidence, but to say that it does not exist is a clear error on their part and they automatically lose the debate when they make such an obviously fallacious claim.

Not to overlook the simple fact that Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever they are calling it this week, isn't even a theory. It is merely a poorly written hypothesis that has no possibility of being tested.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly a Red Herring may be a fact. It may even be a scientific fact. But if it neither supports nor opposes a theory or hypothesis it is not scientific evidence in regards to that idea. And one of the huge failures of creationism is a failure to put their ideas in the from of a testable hypothesis. That is why I am not afraid to say that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. With no testable hypothesis they have no evidence. Though if one proposes a testable hypothesis I will gladly take a look at it. Sadly for most creationists the idea of being proven wrong is just as great as their fear of evolution.

I'd go further. I'd say that because creationism tries to argue supernatural intervention in nature, it is ipso facto an unscientific hypothesis.