Scientific Method vs. Creationist Method

The Scientific Method Of Investigation

1. Initial Observation of Phenomena
From an initial observation of a phenomena, A shortcoming in knowledge is identified.

2. Data Acquisition
Measurement, observation, evidence, collect any data that has any bearing on the phenomena under investigation.

3. Formulate Hypothesis
Formulate multiple hypotheses that explain the observed phenomena.

4. Test Hypothesis
Each hypothesis must be tested against the evidence. Various experiments can be devised to try to disprove and prove each hypothesis.
Any hypothesis that:

• fails to explain the phenomena
• is contradicted by the evidence
• fails experimental scrutiny

is rejected.

Contradictory evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure there is a valid contradiction and not just an explainable exception. Supporting evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure the supporting evidence is not just an exception. Experiments are scrutinised for the validity of their results.
A hypothesis may be refined or modified at any time so that it is consistent with the observed phenomena and the observed evidence. A hypothesis that explains the Phenomena and is consistent with the evidence may now be presented as a theory. More than one hypothesis may fulfil both these criteria therefore there can be more than one theory for any one phenomena.

6. Theory
The Hypothesis that best fits the observed evidence is presented as the explanation of a phenomena . This is known as a Theory.

7. Ongoing Testing Of The Theory
The Theory is published and all interested parties are invited to test the Theory to destruction.
The theory is used to make predictions. These predictions are tested by experiments or further observations. This is an ongoing process.

8. Reject, Modify or Retain Theory.
During testing and investigation, new evidence may come to light that indicates the theory may be incorrect or subject to constraints. The Theory can be either rejected or corrected to make it consistent with all the evidence. Go back to step 7.



The Creationist Method Of Investigation

1. Start with a Conclusion

2. Propose Theory
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.

3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.

4. Reject Modify Or Retain Evidence
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.

If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Christians proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2.

Golden Rule: Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.

Corollary: For Fundamentalist Christians. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.



The Scientific Method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.

The Creationist Method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.

The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.

That seems pretty accurate and its the reason why arguing with some people in this forum is so frustrating

Actually with the creationist method, couldn't you just do away with 2-4?

__________________
If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?

"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."

Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.

Conclusion in the Creationist Method is that god created it. The theory is how god allegedly did it. So 1 is essential.

ROTF! You definitely have it right. I wonder what some of the creationists will say about this one..

Yes, looks accurate to me. Facts only get in the way and are rather confusing. If anything is too confusing they call it a "dumb idea".

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

let see how they did this in proposing evolution

lets send a theologian who failed Med school into the Beagle and let him come up with a possible theory of why life is the way it is

send this theologian with the ideas that was already developed by Erasmus Darwin and other writers many of whom were deists who were dedicated to erasing all ideas about God at whatever cost ..have his ideas influenced by Lamark who not only was not academically trained but many of his ideas have been ridiculed today..Have a lawyer turned Geologist Charles Lyell weave his idea of uniformatitariansim in this mans head and soon you have the rebeginnings of evolution...sprinkle in the idea that "historic geology relies chiefly on paleontology, the study of fossil organism"..which gets us the idea that the rocks are dated by the fossils (way before radiometric dating was discovered) and now you're cooking

yes but make sure the basis of evolution is preserved...hmmm....lets see..problem with explaining for one the "short" lifespan of comets..this will be falsify the billions of years age of the universe..solution: create an OORT cloud that makes these dates possible..another problem: can't really see a line continuum in the fossil record of development in higher taxa animals..bats and ants have always been bats and ants in the fossil record (called stasis)..solution: Come up with the punctuated equilibrium story

example:"The Oort Cloud, a hypothetical shell of cometary material far beyond the orbit of Pluto, is much thinner than originally believed, according to a scientists from JPL and Southwest Research Institute, reported in Sky and Telescope online news. This cloud of material was supposed to be the source of new comets, which disintegrate as they orbit the sun. Stern and Weissman’s calculations show the cloud could only contain less than 10% of what was previously assumed. See this good Planetary Society lay explanation of their work and its implications. The original paper is published in Nature, Volume 409, Number 6820, pp. 589-591 (2001)."



how do we propose how life got started?..bring up a prehistoric biotic soup of RNA in a world without oxygen...problem: oldest rocks are oxidized..how to explain how RNA even got developed and learned to do what it does..another problem:explain mechanism of evolution..solution: mutations...problem most known mutations have shown to have created a problem for the organism..solution: bring up nylon eating bacteria or sickle-cell anemia..problem:nylon bacteria can't survive on anything else..and those that carry SCA rarely live past 20..
hmm what about this story
"According to an article in this week's Science News (Vol 159 p. 54, 01/27/01), specialized proteins perform emergency first aid and morgue duty. Proteins dubbed "chaperones" are able to recognize badly-folded proteins and fix them. Another protein acts as a coroner and breaks apart proteins that are beyond repair"..maybe stasis has a basis after all


lets see Dean Kenyon writes a book on chemical evolution , later questions his ideas and is disbarred from teaching a bilogy class..other points of view that are openly anti-evolution are denied to submit in scientific journals and magazines
what of this piece:"The Stanford anthropologist who published the African Eve theory disputes the interpretation that these findings damage the out-of-Africa theory, according to CNN. So if both theories can co-exist, why argue? “Egos, egos egos,” he said. “Scientists are human.”



see Behes criticism and other IDs
Ahem:
"More lumpiness problems for the Big Bang theory: astronomers have detected a mass of quasars and galaxies 600 million light-years across, the biggest yet. Discovery News Online relays the concerns of Gerard Williger of NOAO:
That such a large structure could form so quickly after the Big Bang calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time . . . . “A successful theory has to explain the extremes,” said Williger.


ha ha
..gee heres another one:
"Pulsars Aren’t So Old 01/16/2001
A pulsar thought to be 24,000 years old may only be 1,615 years old. Data from the new giant orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory reveals that a supernova remnant is clearly associated with the pulsar. This supernova was observed and recorded by the Chinese in 386 A.D. (Reported from January’s American Astronomical Society convention by Scientific American.) According to Astronomy Now, “This calls into question many other pulsar ages and suggests that some revisions are needed in those astronomy textbooks.” ..you think they'll change some of their thinking any time soon

More napajohn either not understanding anything over junior high level OR deliberately telling a fib

Yes estimates of the Oort cloud mass have undergone change BUT it has no effect on the ability to provide comets.

Nobody sent Darwin anywhere or told him to come up with anything. He was on the Beagle for essentially unrelated reasons,(it did involve scientific research, but not really into the possibility of evolution) and before his trip he was a creationist just like everybody else. However, on his trip, he viewed a phenomena and began documenting data about it. See how this just happens to line up perfectly with #'s 1 and 2 of Logical Challenger's scientific method? Darwin then formulated a hypothesis, one of many, to explain what he had observed. One of these alternate hypotheses was indeed Lamarckian evolution, which was falsified. This is step 3 of LC's scientific method. Testing of Darwin's hypothesis then commenced. (Step 4) The rigors of science quickly exposed the other hypotheses as being untrue. However, Darwinian evolution amassed enough evidence and experimental confirmation for it to be accepted as a theory, a valid explanation for how things are. (Step 5) Testing continues even to this day, and evolution has in fact changed much since Darwin proposed it. So, as you can see, The Theory of Evolution did indeed follow the scientific method as Napajohn said, he just got most of the facts wrong, used incredibly inflammatory language, constructed a bunch of strawmen, and (in my opinion) cited parts of articles without giving adequate context.

More out of context or misunderstood info.

Lets put this in context.

The Crab Nebula pulsar is known to follow the observed spin down vs time relationship commonly employed. But it has always been expected on theoretical grounds that this relationship could be expected to break down or change depending upon pulsar environment - specifically galactic magnetic field intensity.

Napajohn,

you fall into the trap (because of your already in place prejudices) that any thing that doesn't dovetail completely with an existing hypothesis signals the complete death knell of the said hypothesis.