Creationism and the scientific method

[dyanaprajna2011]

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation

The scientific method is the analysis used by scientists in asserting the truth of a given hypothesis. The wiki article does a good job of explaining it. I've also linked to the wiki article on the controversy between evolution and creationism.

We can debate the validity of creationism and evolution all day, but it all comes down to this: which one is based on the scientific method? And which one is based on faith and dogma?

Does creationism in any manner follow the scientific method? The very fact of it's metaphysical nature suggests to me that it cannot possibly follow it, therefore, there's no way it can be considered science. At best, it can be considered metaphysical a priori, but even this is real sketchy.

So, the point of this thread: creationists, explain exactly how, in detail, that creationism follows the scientific method.

 

[rusra02]

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation

The scientific method is the analysis used by scientists in asserting the truth of a given hypothesis. The wiki article does a good job of explaining it. I've also linked to the wiki article on the controversy between evolution and creationism.

We can debate the validity of creationism and evolution all day, but it all comes down to this: which one is based on the scientific method? And which one is based on faith and dogma?

Does creationism in any manner follow the scientific method? The very fact of it's metaphysical nature suggests to me that it cannot possibly follow it, therefore, there's no way it can be considered science. At best, it can be considered metaphysical a priori, but even this is real sketchy.

So, the point of this thread: creationists, explain exactly how, in detail, that creationism follows the scientific method.

I agree with quote from the 6/1/04 Watchtower:"Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”
The so-called scientific method has obvious problems and limitations.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 13

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So, in other words, you can't explain creationism by the scientific method. And yet you want it to be considered science. Thanks for that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems that we all agree that science is limited, & that creationism isn't science.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

From the article:

Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.

We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.

And it's even more telling when you read some of the statements of faith from creationist organizations:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

The following paragraphs express the doctrinal convictions of every member of the Reasons to Believe staff and board of directors…. We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a ‘God-breathed’ revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings...We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.

So not only do some creationists believe that creationism isn't science, the faith statements of creationist organizations don't allow it to be, opting instead for a rigid dogmatism. And they want it taught as science? What a joke. These kinds of statements based on such a mindset are beyond ignorant; they're just simply unfathomable. How is anyone supposed to take them seriously?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Creationism definitely is not science. Science is definitely not faith based nor closely resembles a religion in the least.

That Watchtower quote rusra02 mentions is erroneous.

Scientific guesswork differs from theory by which theory itself is directly linked with confirmed tested and observable fact. Creationism is soley guesswork with no factual grounding that could be tested and confirmed making it not even something close to science theory whatsoever.

Creationists attempt to intermix guessing with theory to blur the definition in an attempt to bring creationism as being somehow at par with science theory in order to bring legitimacy whereas actually none exists, due to creationism's complete lack of testable confirmed evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Creationism definitely is not science. Science is definitely not faith based nor closely resembles a religion in the least.

That Watchtower quote rusra02 mentions is erroneous.

Scientific guesswork differs from theory by which theory itself is directly linked with confirmed tested and observable fact. Creationism is soley guesswork with no factual grounding that could be tested and confirmed making it not even something close to science theory whatsoever.

Creationists attempt to intermix guessing with theory to blur the definition in an attempt to bring creationism as being somehow at par with science theory in order to bring legitimacy whereas actually none exists, due to creationism's complete lack of testable confirmed evidence.

The worst criticism of creationism & ID is that they cannot be proven false.
The scientific method does even apply to them.

 

[MysticPhD]

Creationism and Intelligent Design as currently presented are fraudulent attempts to inject religion into science classes on evolution. The Dover trial exposed the Discovery Institute and the Creation Institute as frauds. Having said that . . . the existence of God is not affected by any of this silliness. There is no incompatibility between the existence of God and evolution. It is religion that has issues with it. Religion is not God and God is not religion. Religion is beliefs ABOUT God. It is human vanity and hubris that have created such ridiculous tautological absurdities around the existence of God . . . like the self-contradictory Omni's. Religions embarrass themselves with outrageous nonsense born of ancient ignorance and superstition. But none of that is God's fault.

 

[Skwim]

I agree with quote from the 6/1/04 Watchtower:"Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

So, in what way is faith scientific so as to disqualify it from dismissal as unscientific?

Or, to remove the negative prefixes "dis," and "un" we can rephrase it as: In what way is faith scientific so as to qualify it as scientific?

Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”

Nice if you would provide a source for your quoted material.

In any case, faith isn't limited to the purview of religion. Faith is merely belief with trust. As I approach a busy traffic intersection not only do I believe the oncoming traffic will not turn in front of me, which it actually could, but my belief in this is so strong that I trust it enough (have sufficient faith) to act on it, which convinces me to proceed ahead as planned. No religion involved at all. I suspect non-religious faith is an ongoing daily activity for just about everyone.

The so-called scientific method has obvious problems and limitations.

Limitations, yes, but what "obvious" problems are you talking about?

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 13

However, "H. J. Lipson, 'A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder', Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337." clarifies his position.

"Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."
​

Note his use of "obvious."

And if you're going to quote the guy, why not quote him in full?

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)"
​

Thing is, there is no experimental evidence supporting creationism.

FURTHERMORE,, why would anyone listen to Lipson anyway? He was a crystallography expert, not some PhD biologist who would better garner our respect. The answer, of course, is that quoting him is just another appeal to authority*, a favorite ploy of the creationist camp.

* An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
SOURCE
​

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'd like, just for once, for a creationist to actually offer evidence of creationism, instead of the common tactic of attempting to prove evolution wrong, and assume that creationism is the only other explanation. That sure would be nice, for a change.

 

[McBell]

I'd like, just for once, for a creationist to actually offer evidence of creationism, instead of the common tactic of attempting to prove evolution wrong, and assume that creationism is the only other explanation. That sure would be nice, for a change.

If only there was a piece of subjective empirical evidence of creationism...

 

[Skwim]

I'd like, just for once, for a creationist to actually offer evidence of creationism, instead of the common tactic of attempting to prove evolution wrong, and assume that creationism is the only other explanation. That sure would be nice, for a change.

Dream on. It ain't going to happen. Lacking comparable evidence for creationism their only option is to attack evolution. However, I don't believe they do so so as to change the mind of the evolutionist, but do so to shore up their faith. Hardly a noble tactic, but under the circumstances an understandable one.

 

[idav]

I'd like, just for once, for a creationist to actually offer evidence of creationism, instead of the common tactic of attempting to prove evolution wrong, and assume that creationism is the only other explanation. That sure would be nice, for a change.

I was looking for some creation science and found a site trying to debunk dating methods, they stated obviously the dinosaurs sank the bottom of the stratum giving us a false impression that dinosaurs didn't live with human. IOW all the dinosaurs drowned in the flood. Common sense people, lol!

 

[shawn001]

You know there were a lot of animals that evolved before the dinosaurs that went extinct and opened up a "niche" for the dinosaurs evolution, just like the dinosaurs going extinct and opening up a "niche" for Mammal evolution.

This is part 1 of a great documentary on it all. Before the Dinosaurs: Walking with Monsters

BBC Walking with Monsters 1 of 3 - Video Dailymotion

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny... It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

God cannot be subject to scientific inquiry, but it is arrogant to dismiss God as unscientific? Think about that for a moment. What else would we call something that is not amenable to scientific inquiry other than "unscientific"?

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

Unfortunately, as Lipson would be forced to concede, there is no "experimental evidence" supporting creation, and he is then appealing to the acceptability of this (pseudo)explanation on other grounds than evidence (personal preference? faith? sense of comfort? who knows).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, the point of this thread: creationists, explain exactly how, in detail, that creationism follows the scientific method.

I'd be more interested in finding a creationist who is able to display even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory and its processes. A pipe dream I've patiently held for years.

 

[metis]

I'd be more interested in finding a creationist who is able to display even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory and its processes. A pipe dream I've patiently held for years.

My experience is that they really don't want to. I don't know how many times many of us have posted links to scientific sites only to be completely ignored, and then having them come back with the same nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

I agree with quote from the 6/1/04 Watchtower:"Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”

The so-called scientific method has obvious problems and limitations.

You mean that the scientific method can't and don't delve into the supernatural?

Then for sure, scientific method has limitations in that area.

It relies on the abilities of scientists to observe, to test or to find evidences that either support or refute any given hypothesis.

Creationism relies on belief and faith and superstition of followers of whatever scriptures they happened to follow. And belief, or faith, is hardly objective pursuit of the truth.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You mean that the scientific method can't and don't delve into the supernatural?

Then for sure, scientific method has limitations in that area.

It relies on the abilities of scientists to observe, to test or to find evidences that either support or refute any given hypothesis.

Creationism relies on belief and faith and superstition of followers of whatever scriptures they happened to follow. And belief, or faith, is hardly objective pursuit of the truth.

The worst part about that quote which knowing watch tower is probably out of context is that it ignores that the scientific process is ongoing. It assumes that just because something is set forth that it can't change or be added on. That's why people like rusra still talk about Darwin as if that is all evolution has going for it.

 

[gnostic]

The worst part about that quote which knowing watch tower is probably out of context is that it ignores that the scientific process is ongoing. It assumes that just because something is set forth that it can't change or be added on. That's why people like rusra still talk about Darwin as if that is all evolution has going for it.

:no: I don't think rusra02 understand at all.

You're right, science is ongoing.

Viruses and bacterial infection change quite quickly with each new generation. Antibiotic may work at the initial infection, but viruses change due to mutation, developing new strains of the viruses that may make themselves immune to the original antibiotic. New antibiotics have to be developed to counter these new strains.

Understanding evolution has to go beyond Darwin's original works on evolution - Natural Selection. Other evolutionary mechanisms were developed since the 19th century, to take into account what Darwin could not possibly not know, given the level of technology at Darwin's time.

But the essentials of Darwin's natural selection are still valid and relevant even today, which is why natural selection has not being discarded, among community of biologists, doctors and researchers. Other mechanisms just expand or complement to natural selection.

Understanding modern evolution is essential to understanding rapid changes of viruses. One, original antibiotic cannot possibly cure all.

The theory on gravity have gone beyond the scopes and limitations of Isaac Newton's theory, with Relativity and Quantum Physics.

Scientific theories are not fixed, because new evidences and more newer (and accurate) technologies can provide newer information in which theories can change, and sometimes replace existing ones.

Scientific method take new evidences into account.

No, and sadly, I don't think rusra02, and other creationists like him, understand science at all.

And yes, it doesn't help that when they refused to learn what evolution is really about (like evolution =/= abiogenesis or like evolution =/= atheism), it would seem that we are doom "to educate" them again and again, repeatedly answering the same questions or repeatedly refuting common erroneous opinions they have about evolution. We have better chance of making horse walk on water then teaching them evolution. :banghead3