Let's compare real science to "scientific creationism".
1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.
2. Real scientitsts publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.
3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago.
4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly dissapear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a new idea.
Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.
5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated.
6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subserviant to the data; data are not subserviant to conclusions.
Creationists take their science straight from the bible. Many creationists leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. Thats not science!!!
7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwanism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.
Many creationists societies actually require a 'loyalty oath', which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed!!! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight.
8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses!!! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great ones's success.
Execpt for trivial details, creationists cannot concieve of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not probe the unknown.
9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.
Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accredation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!!!
10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.
Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, antrhopology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that dosn't conform to their interpretation of the bible is suspect and in need of revision.
1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.
2. Real scientitsts publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.
3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago.
4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly dissapear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a new idea.
Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.
5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated.
6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subserviant to the data; data are not subserviant to conclusions.
Creationists take their science straight from the bible. Many creationists leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. Thats not science!!!
7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwanism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.
Many creationists societies actually require a 'loyalty oath', which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed!!! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight.
8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses!!! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great ones's success.
Execpt for trivial details, creationists cannot concieve of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not probe the unknown.
9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.
Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accredation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!!!
10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.
Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, antrhopology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that dosn't conform to their interpretation of the bible is suspect and in need of revision.
