Creationism will only destroy science

[Shane Roach]

We did revamp gravity. It's called general relativity. While the basic idea remains the same, lots of new things came into play that wasn't there before in Netwonian physics. The same applies to evolution. Selection and mutation drives evolution and this idea has been pretty much the same. However, new information about what causes mutations and what kind of mutations exist update evolution. It's not as if we throw out everything we learned in evolution.

As for evolution not being able to be experimented on, again, I point out to this:


How was this not real time experimentation?

Nice dodge. I didn't say revamp the theory of gravitation, I said revamp the acceleration due to gravity close to the surface of the earth, again, to point up the exact lack of discernment which you display here.

The plant experimentation is real time experimentation. The conclusion it comes to concerning precisly how wheat evolved is not. Why do you have difficulty acknowledging this?

 

[Shane Roach]

Except evolution is more than a historical science, just like geology and astronomy are more than just a historical science. We can test and experiment, in real time, many tenets of evolution. I gave one direct example, which you continue to ignore. The problem isn't we're committed to evolution, it's that you don't seem to understand science.

Scientists use historical data to determine things about radioactive decay rates when they analyze the light spectrum of a star or supernova. They can then come up with experiments to verify their observations. Same thing applies to evolution.

If you believe evolution can not be tested in real time, then you probably thing the same applies to plate techtonics, astronomy, and nearly every other science that includes a historical aspect.

Here you appear to be trying to define your way out of the question. I have no problems with anything you said here. I simply point out that you once again demonstrate a strange incapacity for discerning the difference between the reliability of knowledge gained through repeateable, direct experimentation and that which is by its very nature relegated to the realm of un-verifiable assumption.

 

[random_guy]

Nice dodge. I didn't say revamp the theory of gravitation, I said revamp the acceleration due to gravity close to the surface of the earth, again, to point up the exact lack of discernment which you display here.

The plant experimentation is real time experimentation. The conclusion it comes to concerning precisly how wheat evolved is not. Why do you have difficulty acknowledging this?

We did have to revamp our values of acceleration when we came up with relativity. Do you think satellites use Netwonian physics and ignore relativity? If so, you're sorely mistaken.

As for the second point, the experimentation was testing the tenets of evolution. It occurred in real time, and from that a theory was formed. If you think that the conclusion formed was not a good conclusion, please explain why. By your same logic, forensic science is untrustworthy because it works on the exact same principles. Not only that, then all the conclusion in cosmology is also not good since cosmology works with is historical data.

 

[Shane Roach]

The information regarding wheat is really a good example. Part of it is experimental verification. Part of it is assumption. The assumptions are close enough to the experimentally verifiable points to lend a certain credibility to them. Even the article points out, though, that they are not the exact same thing.

The more missing steps there are between something that is verifiable and something that is not, the less reliable the assumptions are.

 

[random_guy]

Here you appear to be trying to define your way out of the question. I have no problems with anything you said here. I simply point out that you once again demonstrate a strange incapacity for discerning the difference between the reliability of knowledge gained through repeateable, direct experimentation and that which is by its very nature relegated to the realm of un-verifiable assumption.

Maybe the problem is I see science as science and you see untrustworthy science (anything that has a historical component such as geology, astronomy, cosmology, forensic science) and science that you can currently observe. I, for one, think that it's perfectly valid for nuclear physicists to say, "this object xxx years old +/- yy years due to the ratio of isotopes in the object." However, according to you, this is an un-verifiable assumption because no one was around back then, regardless of the evidence that decay rates have been relatively constant.

 

[Shane Roach]

We did have to revamp our values of acceleration when we came up with relativity. Do you think satellites use Netwonian physics and ignore relativity? If so, you're sorely mistaken.

As for the second point, the experimentation was testing the tenets of evolution. It occurred in real time, and from that a theory was formed. If you think that the conclusion formed was not a good conclusion, please explain why. By your same logic, forensic science is untrustworthy because it works on the exact same principles. Not only that, then all the conclusion in cosmology is also not good since cosmology works with is historical data.

I didn't say a thing about satellites. So you're telling me the experiments Newton did no longer work?

No, obviously you are not. What you are trying to do is shrug off the onus of answering the question I asked head on.

Why do you have such a problem simply confessing that there is a difference between science that can be repeatedly verified in real time and science that has to rely on assumptions concerning exerimentally verifiable results?

 

[Shane Roach]

Maybe the problem is I see science as science and you see untrustworthy science (anything that has a historical component such as geology, astronomy, cosmology, forensic science) and science that you can currently observe. I, for one, think that it's perfectly valid for nuclear physicists to say, "this object xxx years old +/- yy years due to the ratio of isotopes in the object." However, according to you, this is an un-verifiable assumption because no one was around back then, regardless of the evidence that decay rates have been relatively constant.

Given certain assumptions I have no problem with them. Lacking certain assumotions they would turn out not to be true. Perhaps the difference is that you have a problem discerning the difference between something that can indeed be experimentally verified and something that depends on assumptions about that which can be experimentally verified.

 

[random_guy]

I didn't say a thing about satellites. So you're telling me the experiments Newton did no longer work?

They work, but they're no longer accurate as needed when it comes to satellites. From your post, you seemed to say that gravity has remained unchanged, experimentally. At least that's what I gather from your phrase. I was pointing out that even things such as, "Law of Gravity" is updated with new information.

Why do you have such a problem simply confessing that there is a difference between science that can be repeatedly verified in real time and science that has to rely on assumptions concerning exerimentally verifiable results?

Again, I view science as science. Historical aspects can be tested in present experiments. I think it's perfectly fine to draw conclusions from it. Again, I guess the difference is I view the many parts of historical science as testable, such as viewing a transitional fossil and seeing that it has both birdlike and dinosaurian traits. I also think science does a good job in explaining how the results are not facts, but theories, like theorizing archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of birds but possibly the relatives of the common ancestor of birds.

 

[Shane Roach]

They work, but they're no longer accurate as needed when it comes to satellites. From your post, you seemed to say that gravity has remained unchanged, experimentally. At least that's what I gather from your phrase. I was pointing out that even things such as, "Law of Gravity" is updated with new information.



Again, I view science as science. Historical aspects can be tested in present experiments. I think it's perfectly fine to draw conclusions from it. Again, I guess the difference is I view the many parts of historical science as testable, such as viewing a transitional fossil and seeing that it has both birdlike and dinosaurian traits. I also think science does a good job in explaining how the results are not facts, but theories, like theorizing archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of birds but possibly the relatives of the common ancestor of birds.

Odd how you manage to say absolutely nothing I would disagree with here, and yet still leave the question unanswered.

Why is it you have difficulty discerning any difference at all between the reliability of knowledge gained through directly testable experimentation, and that that relies completely on assumptions about the results of that sort of direct experimentation?

 

[Shane Roach]

Again, I view science as science.

Well, here's the answer right here. I have always viewed science as a purple invisible pink unicorn with wings and a tiny little saddle -- maybe a "My Little Pony" saddle with a few rhinestones and a pink bow. Oh! And also a retractable unicorn horn.

:-/

Seriously... who doesn't view science as science?

 

[Melethiel]

Why do you have such a problem simply confessing that there is a difference between science that can be repeatedly verified in real time and science that has to rely on assumptions concerning exerimentally verifiable results?

Speaking for myself, maybe because I have never seen anyone but yourself make that distinction, and I have a fairly good background in science.

 

[random_guy]

Odd how you manage to say absolutely nothing I would disagree with here, and yet still leave the question unanswered.

Why is it you have difficulty discerning any difference at all between the reliability of knowledge gained through directly testable experimentation, and that that relies completely on assumptions about the results of that sort of direct experimentation?

That's the problem. You say assumptions as if it were backed with no evidence, I say assumptions based on the evidence. For example, in the plant experiment. They concluded that the origin of wheat plants came about through polypoidy and hybrization. They tested this by seeing if it was possible, and it was. The chromosome couns matched up. From this, they concluded that this was a possible method for the arisal of bread wheats. Yes, there were assumptions that this was the method it happened. But they backed up the assumptions with real experiments to show that it was feasible. It's also possible that aliens genetically engineered the wheat plants to make it look like it occurred naturally. However, based on the evidence, this is a feasible conclusion. I have no problem with that, just like I have no problem with physicists assuming decay rates are constants even though no one was around to measure the all the rates. Based on the evidence, the assumptions are valid.

 

[random_guy]

Well, here's the answer right here. I have always viewed science as a purple invisible pink unicorn with wings and a tiny little saddle -- maybe a "My Little Pony" saddle with a few rhinestones and a pink bow. Oh! And also a retractable unicorn horn.

:-/

Seriously... who doesn't view science as science?

Many Creationists view evolution as not a science because they think it's not testable, not falsiable, or it's historical. They view science as anything that isn't historical. Other Creationists view science as including the supernatural. You'd be surprised as how many Creationists try to make specific distinctions in science so that evolution doesn't count, only to disqualify other sciences.

 

[Shane Roach]

That's the problem. You say assumptions as if it were backed with no evidence, I say assumptions based on the evidence. For example, in the plant experiment. They concluded that the origin of wheat plants came about through polypoidy and hybrization. They tested this by seeing if it was possible, and it was. The chromosome couns matched up. From this, they concluded that this was a possible method for the arisal of bread wheats. Yes, there were assumptions that this was the method it happened. But they backed up the assumptions with real experiments to show that it was feasible. It's also possible that aliens genetically engineered the wheat plants to make it look like it occurred naturally. However, based on the evidence, this is a feasible conclusion. I have no problem with that, just like I have no problem with physicists assuming decay rates are constants even though no one was around to measure the all the rates. Based on the evidence, the assumptions are valid.

The problem I have with this is that somewhere between assuming this is the way it happened, and assuming that aliens did it, there are a load of possibilities, many of which might be more plausible but which would not be known yet because of a lack of information.

This particular example doesn't lend itself well to my point, but the point remains...

 

[Shane Roach]

Many Creationists view evolution as not a science because they think it's not testable, not falsiable, or it's historical. They view science as anything that isn't historical. Other Creationists view science as including the supernatural. You'd be surprised as how many Creationists try to make specific distinctions in science so that evolution doesn't count, only to disqualify other sciences.

Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.

People want to educate their kids about God and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science, and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools, and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with, and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.

Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas, and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE, then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.

You are slightly too rational to truly make my point, but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".

 

[random_guy]

The problem I have with this is that somewhere between assuming this is the way it happened, and assuming that aliens did it, there are a load of possibilities, many of which might be more plausible but which would not be known yet because of a lack of information.

This particular example doesn't lend itself well to my point, but the point remains...

That's true that there are a lot of unknowns in the assumptions. That's why scientists constantly update their knowledge when they find out their assumptions are wrong (epigenetic inheritence). However, this is all part of science. I also agree there is a lack of information, but based off of the evidence, it seems reasonable that the methods the botanists describe would be a sound theory on the arisal of wheat plants. That's why I accept evolution as a science just like I accept physics as a science. While both have assumptions built in, from the evidence seen so far, they are reasonable.

That said, I do not dogmatically support evolution because I know at any time, if an assumption is wrong, we have to rewrite parts of the theory. However, I feel this way about all science. That's why I view all science similiar. They have assumptions based off of evidence built into the theories, but if any assumptions are wrong, the theory needs to be revised. However, until that has been figured out, it's perfectly fine to accept the theory as scientific.

 

[Shane Roach]

[/i]

Speaking for myself, maybe because I have never seen anyone but yourself make that distinction, and I have a fairly good background in science.

I don't know if you're really 16 or not, but in my day it was a well understood distinction, and part of the reason arguments go in circles like this is that the WAY the scientific method is presented nowadays is substantially different from how it was taught then, and the way it is taught now is NOT an improvement. It tends to blur the distinction between verifiable fact and hypothesis such that the underlying epistemology as to WHY people would go to the trouble of experimentally verifying things to begin with appears to be lost on many people.

 

[random_guy]

Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.

People want to educate their kids about God and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science, and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools, and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with, and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.

Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas, and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE, then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.

You are slightly too rational to truly make my point, but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".

I think the problem is that atheists and some Creationists, while enemies, are actually helping each other's causes. Militant atheists that say science disproves God and the Bible and Creationists that say science proves God and the Bible allows science, God, and the Bible to conflict. This makes is so that science can be used to attack God and the Bible. However, science does not say whether the supernatural does or does not exist. It makes no claims about the supernatural what so ever.

Science is nothing more than a tool to study our natural world. I think if more atheists and Creationists realize this, there would be more people accepting of science (and hopefully religion). Science doesn't exclude God from setting everything in motion, nor does it exclude Him from giving us souls. It can not exclude or include Him because that's not the role of science.

 

[Shane Roach]

That's true that there are a lot of unknowns in the assumptions. That's why scientists constantly update their knowledge when they find out their assumptions are wrong (epigenetic inheritence). However, this is all part of science. I also agree there is a lack of information, but based off of the evidence, it seems reasonable that the methods the botanists describe would be a sound theory on the arisal of wheat plants. That's why I accept evolution as a science just like I accept physics as a science. While both have assumptions built in, from the evidence seen so far, they are reasonable.

That said, I do not dogmatically support evolution because I know at any time, if an assumption is wrong, we have to rewrite parts of the theory. However, I feel this way about all science. That's why I view all science similiar. They have assumptions based off of evidence built into the theories, but if any assumptions are wrong, the theory needs to be revised. However, until that has been figured out, it's perfectly fine to accept the theory as scientific.

So, what's the problem then with the scientific community acknowledging that the speed of acceleration near the earth's surface or that metal will heat and glow if you run electrical current through a thin filament of it is more reliable knowledge than the ultimate origins of life the universe, and everything I always am left wondering...?

 

[Melethiel]

It tends to blur the distinction between verifiable fact and hypothesis such that the underlying epistemology as to WHY people would go to the trouble of experimentally verifying things to begin with appears to be lost on many people.

That has not been my observation. However, I have not seen the distinction that you are trying to make either. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your distinction, but you refused to clarify...