Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
The best people to judge whether or not this methodology has been followed are the experts in that field. Therefore, peer reviewed papers are the best source. This is the standard by which all scientists and science is judged.
To add to what I said earlier, your argument there would make what is and isn't science entirely subjective to the desires of the "majority of scientists" rather than an actual methodology. Keep in mind, at one time, Creationism was science. If that is the case, Evolution was "unscientific" when it was introduced. In fact, Darwin it seems was brow beaten into admitting that about his greater theory earlier on. If we do go this route, what is and isn't science becomes entirely determined by whim and culture, and there is no "methodology". It almost defeats the entire purpose of the debate.
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
To add to what I said earlier, your argument there would make what is and isn't science entirely subjective to the desires of the "majority of scientists" rather than an actual methodology.
Just to define peer review for further discussions . . .
The reviewers focus on the methodology. A lot. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of papers are rejected because there is not enough experimental data and/or the methodology is weak (usually a mixture of the two because they are tied together). When work is presented at scientific conferences a lot of the criticisms are focused on the experimental procedures and whether the experiments can support the conclusion.
Keep in mind, at one time, Creationism was science.
No, it wasn't. It was an assumption that many scientists had, but I am unaware of a single scientific experiment that involved creationism.
If that is the case, Evolution was "unscientific" when it was introduced.
Obviously, you have never read "Origin of Species".
If we do go this route, what is and isn't science becomes entirely determined by whim and culture, and there is no "methodology".
To be kind, you are speaking of things you have no knowledge of. Have you ever written an original research paper and submitted it for peer review to a scientific journal? Judging from what you have said, you haven't. There is nothing wrong with this, but you need to realize that you don't know of what you speak. If you have any "ins" at a local university and are really curious you might be able to speak to a professor. Better yet, go to PubMed Home and find an article that interests you. Read it.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
I wasn't saying that the journals do not focus on methodology, but that methodology has changed. For example, I wouldn't say 'methodological naturalism' was a part of scientific methodology in the 18th century considering creationism was accepted as the reigning scientific paradigm, and you will presumably see that in their peer-reviewed explanations. Ruling out something based on methodology then seems to be a useless endeavor then because methodology would change with the paradigm. Do you see where I am going with this?
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
Last edited by LordTimothytheWise; 9th October 2009 at 10:12 AM.
I wasn't saying that the journals do not focus on methodology, but that methodology has changed. For example, I wouldn't say 'methodological naturalism' was a part of scientific methodology in the 18th century considering creationism was accepted as the reigning scientific paradigm, and you will presumably see that in their peer-reviewed explanations.
Then do it. Show me a peer reviewed paper from the 18th century that tested supernatural mechanisms.
Ruling out something based on methodology then seems to be a useless endeavor then because methodology would change with the paradigm. Do you see where I am going with this?
Yes, you are going to Sillyland. You want to redefine science.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
I am actually kind of shocked. I thought I would have too many people volenteering.
Maybe they don't like the one on one thing. If that's true, its a pretty lame reason.
A bit late to the party, and I am only speaking form my own experiences, but...
ID/creationsts like the one-on-one challenges for the follwoing reasons:
It gives them a chance to proclaim their heroism and pump up their already massive egos, especially if the person they debate has some legitimate credentials. A fellow I 'debated' many years ago (who had also 'debated' at least 3 other PhDs I am aware of) boasted on his website (his heavily censored website, I might add) that he prefers 'debating' evolutionists with doctorates because when he beats them, it makes evolution look all the worse and evolutionists look incompetent (this fellow was an engineer). Problem was, he lacked the ability (or the humility) to see when he had made an error, and he refused to admit that he was wrong - on ANYTHING. So, it was pretty easy for him to declare victory, regardless of how well he actually did - and his hangers-on knew even less and so sided with him no matter what.
The IDcreationist cannot seem to keep on topic, and when their opponant tries to remain on the agreed upon topic, the IDcreationist accuses the evo of not being able to handle his arguments and declares victory.
Nothing ever come sup in a one-on-one debate that is not brought up in the open forum. Look at Mark Kennedy - he has challenged a few people to opne-on-ones here and elsewhere, and every time he trots out the same - the EXACT same claims that he brings up in the open boards. The 'debates' end up the same, with Kennedy getting demolished on the facts yet declaring victory anyway.
Just to define peer review for further discussions . . .
The reviewers focus on the methodology. A lot. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of papers are rejected because there is not enough experimental data and/or the methodology is weak (usually a mixture of the two because they are tied together). When work is presented at scientific conferences a lot of the criticisms are focused on the experimental procedures and whether the experiments can support the conclusion.
Isn't it the sheer volume of papers? Nature alone gets about 1500 papers a week, IIRC, many of which are simultaneously sent to other journals at the same time on the (very good) chance that they'll be rejected by Nature. No scientific journal can peer-review that many papers in such a short time, so most things that don't instantly look amazing is rejected without review.
Is it a broken system? Kinda. Does it work? Kinda, too.
But I'll leave this out-of-context comment to dangle and parachute out as quickly as I parachuted in.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
