Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[rmwilliamsll]

"Matter exists" isn't a theory, it's a philosophy. It's part of what is known as methodological naturalism or methodological materialism.

the statement 'only matter exists' is philosophy, philosophic naturalism. i'm not certain that MN is philosophic or metaphysic or just a working scientific principle. that 'matter exists' appears to be more a statement of realism, of common sense even, then a metaphysical/ontological principle.

 

[Randall McNally]

the statement 'only matter exists' is philosophy, philosophic naturalism. i'm not certain that MN is philosophic or metaphysic or just a working scientific principle. that 'matter exists' appears to be more a statement of realism, of common sense even, then a metaphysical/ontological principle.

Well, yeah, but I didn't make the statement "only matter exists" precisely to avoid messy and irrelevant metaphysics. Anyway to be more accurate, methodological naturalism is more like, "assume matter exists for the scope of this system."

 

[Ondoher]

According to you, the great criterion of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. What if you're wrong? What if the essence of a good theory is not falsifiability? You've bought into this assumption rather religiously it seems to me. Frankly, I don't have that much faith.

Science is generally very concerned about matter. Ok, show me how to falsify the assumption that matter exists. Oh, I see. We can't falsify it, so according to your logic, the assumption that matter exists has no place in science. Well, then, I guess we better tell scientists to stop their experiments upon matter. Matter has no place in science because it cannot be falsified.

As I stated before, if we saw something in outer space that looked like evidence of intelligent life, the tentative conclusion that intelligent life exists would be a scientific conclusion. There is no way to ultimately falsify it - but that doesn't make it unscientific.

That did not appear to be a testable prediction for creationism. Perhaps it isn't science afterall.

 

[reconciliation]

There is no growing group of scientists who reject the theory, at least not in the relevant scientific areas. There is no lack of missing links. Furthermore, I'd like you to define genetic information, before continuing a discussion on whether or not it can be increased or decreased naturally.

Well, there is the growing group among scientists who do that. Helsinki University of Technology put it this way in it's website: "There is a small but growing number of scientists who challenge the theory of evolution".

There is the lack of missing links, even such lack that evolutionists cannot have even themselves any clear opinion which are missing links and which are not. In my mind, information is something like data which is coded and expressed with different symbols. Perhaps that isn't valid definition but I hope it helps us to understand this subject better. That kind of genetic "data" cannot arise by chance.

 

[reconciliation]

I say that there is no evidence against evolution that a creationist can provide...-most do actually. Literalism is a small fringe of christianity that is mostly confined to the United States.

The biologic and genetic diversity in nature cannot be a result of "a random process which didn't have people in it's mind", as one famous evolutionist described evolution. I claim there is no evidence for evolution which couldn't be understood better in the light of the Bible and creationism.

"Literalism" isn't limited to the U.S. and this subject isn't only about literal interpretation of the Scriptures; it's connected with the very foundation of the Gospel: cause of suffering and death.

 

[JAL]

As I stated before, there is a danger of confusing the terms "evidence" and "inference." The evidence is always testable. The inference is not always testable. I gave the example of the universal common ancestor. This entity, if it existed, presumably has decayed. It is, to us, invisible, just like God, and therefore is believed in on the basis of evidence. It requires faith. And because we cannot travel back in time, the common ancestor theory is not fully falsifiable. True, you might be able to falsify it in certain ways - heck, if we master time travel, we might be able to falsify even creationism - but there seems to be a point of impasse beyond which we cannot falsify it due to our inability to go back in time. That is to say, if the DNA points to a common ancestor, this would be consistent with both a creationary and and evolutionistic model, as I argued earlier. As to which model one chooses will partly be based on evidence, partly on faith, because we cannot APODICTICALLY falsify either model.

As another example, take the Big Bang theory. Here is the same problem. The evidence is testable. The inference itself is not because no one presently, as far as I can see, exists in that time frame to watch what happened. So one's conclusion as to whether our origin begins with a Big Bang, or with God, or with some other theory, will be partly based on evidence, partly on faith, because our origin is currently invisible to us, just like God. It cannot be APODICTICALLY falsified.

As a third example, take physics itself. There is more than one possible model to explain the movement of bodies. The most popular models of the past century have resulted in some rather bizarre conclusions (warpage of space and time, time that slows down, wave-particle duality of light, relativity of simultaneity, particles with no definite location, etc. etc. etc.). I question some of the assumptions that have led to these conclusions. What has happened, as far as I can tell, is this. We began with an incorrect assumption or two. This led to the possibilities of discrepancies with observed data. To reconcile the discrepancies, we factor in accomodations such as "curvature of space and time" and "relativity of simultaneity" and so forth. The discrepancies are now resolved. We now predict reality perfectly. And in this sense we probably cannot APODICTICALLY falsify these theories. In fact scientists admit that no theory is really "proven." Since we always view reality through spectacles tinted with assumptions, "the truth" ultimately is to us invisible, just like God. But I hope that some physicisist will produce a better model that eradicates the bizarre conclusions currently accepted.

A fourth example, raised earlier, is the idea that other intelligent life exists on distant planets. If this life is smarter than we are it may hide itself from us such that we cannot falsify their existence. But if we see evidence of their existence, it would be a reasonable, scientific conclusion to infer it.

These examples indicate to me that falsifiability is ultimately an unrealistic goal. It is, in many cases, simply asking too much. As I said, the evidence is always somewhat testable and somewhat falsifiable. The INFERENCES such as modern physics itself, are not always testable/falsifiable in the full sense, in the apodictic sense, often because we cannot travel back in time, or often because our spectacles are tinted with preconceived assumptions, or because our instruments are insufficiently advanced to do all the necessary testing.

On this basis I conclude that falsifiability is not the ultimate critierion of a good scientific theory. What, then, is that critierion? I like the word forensics. A theory is scientific when the forensic evidence presented to our senses (both directly and via our instruments) points to a possible inference. Newton considered gravity forensic evidence that God exists. And when I look back at the above four examples, I feel satisfied that this definition of science fits all the possible scenarios much better than the falsifiability-notion.

There you have it. That's my opinion. These are my final comments on this particular issue. I don't want to spend more time on this issue, so I will let others have the last word.

 

[reconciliation]

Yeah, only there isn't. This is a completely fallacious argument. I can assure that Evolution is not facing a crisis amongst the scientific community. Trust me, I think I'd know.

So you think you are right and Helsinki University wrong? I didn't mention any crisis, I just said there is a growing number of scientists who don't buy that theory.

Hmmm, sounds like you're accusing Theistic Evolutionists of not being tru Chrsitians. Hmmm, sounds like a rule violation to me. Not to mention the fact that it is wrong. The weight of the evidence is that one would have to not interpret Genesis literally if you were still to accept it.

Let me explain. I didn't accuse anyone. I am not the judge, God is. Nonetheless, belief in the extremely old Earth does undermine one very central part of the Christian faith. Christianity teaches suffering, death, diseases and separation between man and God are curse caused by the Fall of Man. This cannot be true if there was eg. death before man, that's before the Fall. This is confirmed throughout the New Testament: Adam sinned, therefore Jesus had to die to bring us back to God. If that wasn't the case, both Jesus and apostles would have made a very bad mistake in their teaching.

And yet again you're incorrect. 3 for 3. Wow. The simple fact is that Creationism is a small, albeit vocal, subsect of Christianity. Most Christians choose not to bury their heads in the sand and actually accept the world that we live in. But you know, that's your choice. Your statement above is just false though.

I think this was the third time you were wrong. Congratulations! Most active Christians don't teach evolution. I am a cell leader and I know many believers from differing churches, and none of them defends strongly evolution but many are powerfully against it. And this isn't because they "bury their heads in the sand" but because they understand that both the Bible and real science are against that theory.

Who says that mutations are informational decreases? True, deletion mutations are, I suppose informational decreases but what about duplication?

Duplication cannot create any new information; it just copies that which already is there. Mutations are random. Therefore they lead nature from cosmos to chaos, not vice versa.

Yeah, only we do. It's called scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence can be understood in the light of the Bible, and then we find out that these two are completely consistent.

So I assume that you still believe the Earth is flat

European scientists never believed that.

Does it expressely state in the Bible that Jesus said we must take Genesis literally? Does it explicitly state that 6-day creation is literal?

No, it doesn't. But what Jesus said was that people were created at the beginning of the creation, not some 6 billion years after the universe.

Seen any corners to the Earth recently?

The Bible doesn't teach the Earth would be flat or would have any corners.

 

[Freodin]

Well, there is the growing group among scientists who do that. Helsinki University of Technology put it this way in it's website: "There is a small but growing number of scientists who challenge the theory of evolution".

Source please - The HUT website is quite large.

 

[artybloke]

Most active Christians don't teach evolution.

Define "active Christian" (that usually means "people who agree with the tiny little bit of the Church I go to" I've found.)

 

[h2whoa]

So you think you are right and Helsinki University wrong? I didn't mention any crisis, I just said there is a growing number of scientists who don't buy that theory.

No, I think that YOU are wrong. Please cite your source that says the whole of Helsinki Univiversity says evolution is in trouble. I work at two Universities, Liverpool and Manchester, as well as collaboration with the functional genomics people at the University of Nottingham. Don't see any scientists here rejecting evolution.

This idea that there is a growing number of scientists rejecting evolution is a flat out lie.

Let me explain. I didn't accuse anyone. I am not the judge, God is. Nonetheless, belief in the extremely old Earth does undermine one very central part of the Christian faith. Christianity teaches suffering, death, diseases and separation between man and God are curse caused by the Fall of Man. This cannot be true if there was eg. death before man, that's before the Fall. This is confirmed throughout the New Testament: Adam sinned, therefore Jesus had to die to bring us back to God. If that wasn't the case, both Jesus and apostles would have made a very bad mistake in their teaching.

But you are judging again, by proxy, and implying that you have God's aproval. You say ou are not judging and then fo on to say that Christianity cannot be true if you believe in a non-literal creation. I take death to mean spiritual death, not physical. God told us to live long lives and be fruitful. If we were intended to live forever would He not have said "Go and live forever. By the way I've also created an infinite amount of space for you to live because if everybody is intended to live, physically, forever and be fruitful, we're going to pretty quickly run out of space on this globe".

Most active Christians don't teach evolution. I am a cell leader and I know many believers from differing churches, and none of them defends strongly evolution but many are powerfully against it. And this isn't because they "bury their heads in the sand" but because they understand that both the Bible and real science are against that theory.

No I assure you are wrong. Whoopdy-doo you're a cell leader. So you associate with creationists. Of course people in your area are not going to believe in evolution. That's because they have been brought up with the creationist fallacy. The simple fact is that the majority of Christians do accept evolution. I say to you that if you claim otherwise, you are lying.

Duplication cannot create any new information; it just copies that which already is there. Mutations are random. Therefore they lead nature from cosmos to chaos, not vice versa.

Wrong buster. Please define new information. You clearly have no idea about genetics so you will just continue to spout your rhetoric without any actual basis. Typical.

Duplication is an addition of information. Many genetic effects are synergistic and dose-dependent so a duplication will have a direct effect. Even if it doesn't, if you duplicate a functional gene then mutations can take place in one or other copy of the gene without having an adverse effect on the organism. THis is how gene families are produced.

Scientific evidence can be understood in the light of the Bible, and then we find out that these two are completely consistent.

There is certainly no reason why science and the Bible can't exist together. Unless you demand a literal reading of Genesis. In which case they can't and people will be driven away from religion.

European scientists never believed that.

What are you talking about?? The whole world believed it. And there was direct resistance to a round Earth and an Earth that wasn't the centre of the solar system because it contradicted the Bible. These literalists were wrong. Sound familiar??????

The Bible doesn't teach the Earth would be flat or would have any corners.

Revelation7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the
earth

You were saying???

h2

 

[Mistermystery]

So you think you are right and Helsinki University wrong? I didn't mention any crisis, I just said there is a growing number of scientists who don't buy that theory.

That is strange because they just accepted a new study course in biosciences which is loaded with evolution in 2004:
http://www.helsinki.fi/admissions/biosciences.htm

And it's equally starnge that they keep aproving of projects dealing with evolution like for instance this one. Of the simple fact that the word evolution yields 4650+ pages. The terms theory of evolution yields 450+ sites. All very strange for something that apperently is growing so rapidly against it.

Thsi is once again a creationist misconception, especially when it stays unsupported by sources. I offer this sciam link:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

 

[Mistermystery]

European scientists never believed that (the earth was flat).

Wow, prove that assumption mister. Got any sources to back that up with?

No, it doesn't. But what Jesus said was that people were created at the beginning of the creation, not some 6 billion years after the universe.

Could you tell me where the bible precisely said that the Earth is 6000 years old? I seem to be forgetting where it is said *Literary*.

The Bible doesn't teach the Earth would be flat or would have any corners.

My rebuttal to those kind of claims:

Re: Flat earth and the bible:

Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end."

Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the Earth."

Revelations 7:1: "... things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the Earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the Earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. "

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the Ends of the Earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? "

Jeremiah 16:19 "O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the Ends of the Earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."

Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the Ends of the Earth." (p.s. no tree could ever grow so tall that it was seen everywhere)

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." (p.s. one fixed point to see every kingdom in the world? sounds unpossible to me, eventhough this one can be discarted as a vision).


My personal favorite is job 38:14 though:" The earth takes shape like clay under a seal. "

Have you ever seen a spherical seal?

I thought not.

Some people who are using Isaiah 40, carefully ignore other verses of Isaiah. They point to the verse (To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth) which they think shows that the Bible writers knew the earth was a sphere.

They believe that the word "circle" could actually mean "sphere," since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah's use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a "ball." (He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18) )

Ball is closer to a sphere then a circle will ever be. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.

 

[Erstwhile_Lurker]

Well, there is the growing group among scientists who do that. Helsinki University of Technology put it this way in it's website: "There is a small but growing number of scientists who challenge the theory of evolution".

source please, I found nothing of the sort when I searched their website.

 

[Mistermystery]

I've found something I think, but my sumonian isn't that great: http://www.studium.helsinki.fi/ajankohtaiset/
Does it say something like "Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Future of Biology "?

Edit: never mind I babelfished it.

Helsinki University of Technology

Main building, Mellin-auditorium, Otaniemi
22.10. 14:15-19:15
Nothing in modern scientific discussion raises controversy and emotions like the question of design in biology. This is understandable since the ruling paradigm of natural history is Darwinian evolution: random genetic changes guided by natural selection have created all the biological complexity. A small but growing number of scientists challenge the neo-Darwinian view (doc). Evolutionary biologist Dr Richard Sternberg and philosopher of science Dr Paul Nelson explain the reasons in this lecture series.
​

Lectures are by Paul Nelson and Richard Sternberg. Paul Nelson has a lecture "How Do We Detect Intelligent Causes?" If you've followed the argument here, then you know that that the answer is we can detect living causes but not necessarily intelligent causes.

It's sad to see that you parroted everything (right down to the "small but growing number"), without looking into it any further. So they reject evolution out-right? No. Do they reject an old Earth? No. They challange and ask questions about neo-darwinism, That doesn't mean that they reject it.


Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.

I offer this silly and albeit stupid comic to further point out how dangerous misconceptions like yours are.

 

[Erstwhile_Lurker]

doh

 

[Mistermystery]

I also don't know if that this is the same person, but it seems like he a pretty unreliable source from time to time:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer,"The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.


We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

 

[Tomk80]

Duplication cannot create any new information; it just copies that which already is there. Mutations are random. Therefore they lead nature from cosmos to chaos, not vice versa.

That is why I would like a definition on what you call 'new' information. Would a mutation preventing cardiovascular disease be 'new' information? A mutation preventing AIDS? What about changes in number of toes? What exactly do you mean with 'new information'.

A duplication mutation would mean an increase in information by any sense of the word. First you have a certain amount of information. Now you have that amount twice, which is an increase. Now, is it 'new' information. This will depend on your definition. However, if this duplicated gene mutation (for example with a deletion or point mutation), you will have new information. I don't know whether this has been observed, maybe I'll do a pubmed search somewhere this weekend. Just tell me first whether the following would be 'new' information according to you, and whether it would be an increase in information. Please also explain why.

1: Point mutation changing a gene
2: Deletion mutation changing the function of a gene
3: insertion mutation changing the function of a gene
4: Duplication mutation duplicating a gene
5: Duplication with a subsequent point mutation in the duplicated gene
6: Duplication with a subsequent deletion in the duplicated gene
7: Duplication with a subsequent insertion in the duplicated gene

So if you answer the question whether these are increases in information and consist of 'new' information and explain why, we can that way first get to the exact meaning of information. Than after that we'll do a search on pubmed and other engines to see whether any of these really occur and what the meaning is.

 

[Nathan David]

You want to throw me out of the country because I have a religous opinion?

No, I want you to leave the country because you have a political opinion that runs contrary to the constitution. What gives you the right to spend taxpayer money on schools to promote your religion?

BTW, while you are busy throwing me of the country, cast your vote to throw out all those senators and U.S. Presidents who supported prayer in schools for so many generations. Looks like we'll have to throw out George Bush as well since he likes those traditional practices.

I would like nothing better. Actually I'd rather see Bush in prison for lying about Iraq, but exile would be an acceptable alternative.

You speak as though you represent the feelings of this country.

No, I speak for the constitution of this country, which guarantees religious freedom, which you said you are opposed to.

I see it how it works, It's ok to write "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills so long as we don't mention God anywhere but the church.

That is not what I said at all. It's bad manners to lie about what other people say.

Today, no one is asking that prayer be mandatory.

You've got me fooled. Voluntary prayer is not only allowed, it's constitutionally protected.

And yes, many Christians have been reprimanded for praying, carrying Bibles to school, and expressing their beliefs. Some have had to take it to the Supreme Court where they battled the ACLU

You're wrong, the ACLU was on their side in those cases.

 

[Ondoher]

As I stated before, there is a danger of confusing the terms "evidence" and "inference." The evidence is always testable. The inference is not always testable. I gave the example of the universal common ancestor. This entity, if it existed, presumably has decayed. It is, to us, invisible, just like God, and therefore is believed in on the basis of evidence. It requires faith. And because we cannot travel back in time, the common ancestor theory is not fully falsifiable. True, you might be able to falsify it in certain ways - heck, if we master time travel, we might be able to falsify even creationism - but there seems to be a point of impasse beyond which we cannot falsify it due to our inability to go back in time. That is to say, if the DNA points to a common ancestor, this would be consistent with both a creationary and and evolutionistic model, as I argued earlier. As to which model one chooses will partly be based on evidence, partly on faith, because we cannot APODICTICALLY falsify either model.

As another example, take the Big Bang theory. Here is the same problem. The evidence is testable. The inference itself is not because no one presently, as far as I can see, exists in that time frame to watch what happened. So one's conclusion as to whether our origin begins with a Big Bang, or with God, or with some other theory, will be partly based on evidence, partly on faith, because our origin is currently invisible to us, just like God. It cannot be APODICTICALLY falsified.

As a third example, take physics itself. There is more than one possible model to explain the movement of bodies. The most popular models of the past century have resulted in some rather bizarre conclusions (warpage of space and time, time that slows down, wave-particle duality of light, relativity of simultaneity, particles with no definite location, etc. etc. etc.). I question some of the assumptions that have led to these conclusions. What has happened, as far as I can tell, is this. We began with an incorrect assumption or two. This led to the possibilities of discrepancies with observed data. To reconcile the discrepancies, we factor in accomodations such as "curvature of space and time" and "relativity of simultaneity" and so forth. The discrepancies are now resolved. We now predict reality perfectly. And in this sense we probably cannot APODICTICALLY falsify these theories. In fact scientists admit that no theory is really "proven." Since we always view reality through spectacles tinted with assumptions, "the truth" ultimately is to us invisible, just like God. But I hope that some physicisist will produce a better model that eradicates the bizarre conclusions currently accepted.

A fourth example, raised earlier, is the idea that other intelligent life exists on distant planets. If this life is smarter than we are it may hide itself from us such that we cannot falsify their existence. But if we see evidence of their existence, it would be a reasonable, scientific conclusion to infer it.

These examples indicate to me that falsifiability is ultimately an unrealistic goal. It is, in many cases, simply asking too much. As I said, the evidence is always somewhat testable and somewhat falsifiable. The INFERENCES such as modern physics itself, are not always testable/falsifiable in the full sense, in the apodictic sense, often because we cannot travel back in time, or often because our spectacles are tinted with preconceived assumptions, or because our instruments are insufficiently advanced to do all the necessary testing.

On this basis I conclude that falsifiability is not the ultimate critierion of a good scientific theory. What, then, is that critierion? I like the word forensics. A theory is scientific when the forensic evidence presented to our senses (both directly and via our instruments) points to a possible inference. Newton considered gravity forensic evidence that God exists. And when I look back at the above four examples, I feel satisfied that this definition of science fits all the possible scenarios much better than the falsifiability-notion.

There you have it. That's my opinion. These are my final comments on this particular issue. I don't want to spend more time on this issue, so I will let others have the last word.

You have been one of the more open minded creationists I've seen in a long while, and I really don't want to discourage that. Keep it up.

That said, you don't get to have the last word on the definition and method of science. In fact, you really don't get a say at all.

The first and foremost requirement of science is that it is testable. Anything that cannot be tested, in principle, if not in practice, is not science.

The way you test a scientific hypothesis is to use that hypothesis to create deductive predictions about what the data should look like, or about the result of some experiment. This is called a testable, predictive model. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested in this way is not scientific. It is no better or worse than any other hypothesis that cannot be tested. As far as science is concerned, the following statements are equal:

• God created everything last tuesday including a false history and humans with false memories.
• All your experiences are actually just false information fed into you by a computer run by an evil mechanical society using humans as batteries.

Neither of these statements can make any predictions about what the world must look like if they are true. There would be no hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with either statement. As far as science is concerned, even if either one were actually true, they are useless and outside of what science can investigate.

Testability is a central concept in science, all hypotheses must be testable. The proposition that God designed life makes no predictions about what life must look like if god designed it. There is no hypothetical observation that would not be consistent with this model. No mater how much you might find the argument philosophically convincing, it lies entirely outside of the realm of science and is useless as a theory of origins.

Here are some supporting references:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559757/Karl_Popper.html#p2
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578797/Scientific_Method.html
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SciMeth.htm
http://www.bibarch.com/Concepts/ScientificMethod.htm
http://seasproject.disl.org/oldsite/new_page_3.htm#limitation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

[Doorak]

Seriously people, whoever is completely against the idea of evolution is living in the dark ages. The reason why the earth is 6000 years old is that during Catholism's defiant reign over Europe they decided to work out the age the the World. Now how could they do this? Easy. Add all the ages in the Bible (more or less), they did have 'scientists' to calculate the world via scripture, after all they did believe the text quite literally.