How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Think about it.

Some theory has to be #1.

Even if that was the case your analogy still fails.

 

[VirOptimus]

An idea/observation/discovery that satisfies all the requirements of the scientific method.

Ok, you dont know what a scientific theory entails (as we all already know).

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, you dont know what a scientific theory entails (as we all already know).

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

So quoting a dishonest person about the scientific method is supposed to help you? The poor fool you referred to is complaining because there is no religious version of the scientific method. Since the sciences are extremely diverse it would be counterproductive to expect there to be one overarching "scientific method". But it does have the general form of study, form a hypothesis, test ones hypothesis then adjust the hypothesis as necessary repeat endlessly and carefully publish one's findings and so that others may check your work and see if they get the same results or something different. They too publish their results. This allows constant improvement in the sciences. It is the best method that we have for adding to the general knowledge of mankind. The work that you wrote appears to be that of a jealous person that can see his own religious beliefs fail and that there is no way to correct them.

How does not correct the flaws in the Bible? That is its main failing. All that some can do is to pretend that there are no failures in it and that actually takes away from the value of the book. It amounts to changing it into a religious talisman that is worshiped as a false idol for being "The Bible" rather than being venerated for the knowledge that it does have.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does not correct the flaws in the Bible? That is its main failing. All that some can do is to pretend that there are no failures in it and that actually takes away from the value of the book. It amounts to changing it into a religious talisman that is worshiped as a false idol for being "The Bible" rather than being venerated for the knowledge that it does have.

The Bible is sharper than any twoedged sword.

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,

Talismen can take a hike.

 

[pitabread]

What I find interesting is that many who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that, 'it isn't just another scientific theory;' until, you know, it becomes convenient for it ti be one.

[citation needed]

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is sharper than any twoedged sword.

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,

Talismen can take a hike.

How ironic. You just declared that the Bible is a magical talisman. And then tried to use it as one.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

[citation needed]

None is needed when I'm speaking from my own experience. But nice try.

 

[pitabread]

None is needed when I'm speaking from my own experience. But nice try.

A citation would give your claim credibility.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

A citation would give your claim credibility.

Don't need one when I'm speaking from my own experience. Again, nice try.

 

[pitabread]

Don't need one when I'm speaking from my own experience. Again, nice try.

Just understand that if you make an unsupported claim, nobody has to believe you.

The fact that you are doubling down on *not* providing examples for what you claim makes you appear even less credible.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just understand that if you make an unsupported claim, nobody has to believe you.

The fact that you are doubling down on *not* providing examples for what you claim makes you appear even less credible.

Sort of like the fossil record and macroevolution claims?

 

[pitabread]

Sort of like the fossil record and macroevolution claims?

Er, no. Those things exist and there is evidence for them.

Or are you really trying to claim the fossil record doesn't exist?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Just understand that if you make an unsupported claim, nobody has to believe you.

The fact that you are doubling down on *not* providing examples for what you claim makes you appear even less credible.

I made a claim of something I had noticed in my own experience. I think at this point that you're just trying to be difficult. Putting you on ignore.

 

[pitabread]

Putting you on ignore.

Likewise.

 

[inquiring mind]

Er, no. Those things exist and there is evidence for them.

Or are you really trying to claim the fossil record doesn't exist?

Amusing on both counts.

 

[pitabread]

Amusing on both counts.

Cool story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sort of like the fossil record and macroevolution claims?

Oh my, this post tells me that it is unlikely that you understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss that first?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Likewise.

I think that makes you the third. I do believe that some posters abuse the "Ignore" option. This particular poster puts anyone that makes his errors clear on ignore.

 

[tas8831]

Oh my, this post tells me that it is unlikely that you understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss that first?

Don't bother - he puts on a big show, pretending to be concerned about accuracy and evidence and all that, but in the end, he is a typical verse-spewing literalist with zero scientific knowledge or understanding of science. He ignores evidence and explanations and reiterates the same bogus claims over and over.

IOW - a standard YEC.