Origins theory is not a science.

[billwald]

Origins theory is not a science. It is a study of (pre)history.

What does "prehistorical" mean? It is a study of something older than history, something that comes before history.

Then what does "history" mean? History is the study of human culture since humans have been producing some sort of writing and documentation.

The study of civilizations prior to writing by using only artifacts is a prehistorical study.

Traditionally, history has been classified as an art. History degrees are granted by colleges of arts, not colleges of science.

People who think origins theory is a science want us to believe that the lack of documentation converts the unscientific study to a scientific study. This doesn't compute.

Part of the problem is that modern people think that the use of expensive technical equipment converts an art into a science. But consider the subject of graphic arts such as sketching and painting. Paintings are analyzed in schools of the arts. That a canvass may be analyzed by an x-ray or paint chips subjected to spectrographic analysis doesn't change art appreciation into a science.

 

[juvenissun]

Origins theory is not a science. It is a study of (pre)history.

Science IS a way to study anything in (pre)history.

 

[Mallon]

Origins theory is not a science. It is a study of (pre)history.

What does "prehistorical" mean? It is a study of something older than history, something that comes before history.

Then what does "history" mean? History is the study of human culture since humans have been producing some sort of writing and documentation.

Scientists disagree. The dividing line between science and non-science isn't written human history.
Science, simply put, is the formation and testing of objective hypotheses. Hypotheses regarding processes in the past, present, and future can be tested, and are therefore scientific.

Traditionally, history has been classified as an art. History degrees are granted by colleges of arts, not colleges of science.

Surely you must admit that reading early American documents is not quite comparable with, say, running bootstrap tests on cladistic analyses or isochron dating.

People who think origins theory is a science want us to believe that the lack of documentation converts the unscientific study to a scientific study.

Source?

Part of the problem is that modern people think that the use of expensive technical equipment converts an art into a science.

No. Hypothesis testing and the resulting theoretical framework to account for facts is what makes science. Expensive equipment just helps us to test those hypotheses.

But consider the subject of graphic arts such as sketching and painting. Paintings are analyzed in schools of the arts. That a canvass may be analyzed by an x-ray or paint chips subjected to spectrographic analysis doesn't change art appreciation into a science.

Non sequitur. Appreciating art is one thing. Determining the age and composition of the paint using infrared reflectography or whatever is quite another (and fundamentally scientific).

 

[Dannager]

I love it when people who aren't scientists try to tell scientists that science doesn't work the way they think it works.

 

[billwald]

What makes one a "scientist?"

 

[Mallon]

What makes one a "scientist?"

The act of formulating hypotheses about the natural world, deriving methodologies to test them, carrying out those experiments, drawing conclusions from the results, submitting your research to peer review, and disseminating it to a larger audience.

 

[USincognito]

Origins theory is not a science. It is a study of (pre)history.

Is Archaeology, Paleontology and Geology; history, art or science?

 

[random_guy]

So is forensic science art or science? What about astronomy, the act of studying things billions of years ago, art or science? Sounds pretty absurd to think that origins theory isn't science.

I can come up with a hypothesis:
"Mixing these inorganic chemicals can create organic chemicals"
Test it.
Observe results.
Publish results.

How is this process not scientific?

 

[juvenissun]

I love it when people who aren't scientists try to tell scientists that science doesn't work the way they think it works.

You will be surprised that sometimes, they are correct.

 

[juvenissun]

Is Archaeology, Paleontology and Geology; history, art or science?

I vote for "art".

 

[Mallon]

I vote for "art".

So you, who claims to be a professional geologist, see yourself as an artist rather than a scientist? You see yourself as producing art rather than science?

Whatever you do, don't tell your university that. Especially if you're seeking tenure.

 

[juvenissun]

So you, who claims to be a professional geologist, see yourself as an artist rather than a scientist? You see yourself as producing art rather than science?

Whatever you do, don't tell your university that. Especially if you're seeking tenure.

In fact, I tell everyone about that, include my students (so they can't hold me responsible for what I told them .

Geological science IS a scientific art. One would NEVER know what happened exactly. That is why I am SO impressed when God says: do you know where comes the wind? or the rain?

 

[billwald]

>Is Archaeology, Paleontology and Geology; history, art or science?

Can the hypotheses in these studies be falsified?

For example, When the Wife and I drive through the valleys in So Utah, North Arizona and look at the red cliffs I say "Noah's flood" and The Wife laughs. Yet almost half of all Americans think they were formed by Noah's flood. How can the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood be falsified?

I agree with the concept that if a hypothesis can't be falsified, then neither can it be demonstrated scientifically to be true.

 

[Mallon]

Can the hypotheses in these studies be falsified?

Yes. Hypotheses in these fields are tested every day.

How can the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood be falsified?

By showing that the sediments forming the canyon walls could not have originated in flood conditions. This has been demonstrated time and again.

 

[crawfish]

That is why I am SO impressed when God says: do you know where comes the wind? or the rain?

I think we should be more impressed now that we know much of the background that goes into making the wind and rain. It's a complicated process that only a truly great God could have come up with.

 

[juvenissun]

I think we should be more impressed now that we know much of the background that goes into making the wind and rain. It's a complicated process that only a truly great God could have come up with.

Can you ever imagine a hexagonal wind pattern? Amazing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070328-saturn-hexagon.html

 

[Molal]

In fact, I tell everyone about that, include my students (so they can't hold me responsible for what I told them .

Geological science IS a scientific art. One would NEVER know what happened exactly. That is why I am SO impressed when God says: do you know where comes the wind? or the rain?

Clearly you are conflating the definition of science with the definition of art. This is clearly implied by your response and your propensity to place the word art in quotation marks.

I hope that when you define science as the definition of art to your students you clearly express this as your personal opinion and one that is not widely held. Misleading students is not a good thing.

 

[Calminian]

I love it when people who aren't scientists try to tell scientists that science doesn't work the way they think it works.

I love it when scientists who aren't philosophers or theologians, try to tell them how to limit all their thinking to basic scientific induction.

 

[Calminian]

Origins theory is not a science. It is a study of (pre)history.

Agreed that it is not a science in that, it is not logical to approach the origin of the existence of something using scientific principles. Science is the study of natural processes, but it cannot use that understanding to tell us how they came into existence or being. After all, a thing cannot be the cause of itself. This is the folly our modern society has fallen into. And yes I agree, that it is more of a historical question, and the Bible is an excellent source for this history. It actually challenge the modern naturalistic theories of our origin. But even without the Bible, logical dictates against our being coming about naturally. So I believe it is a historical issue and a philosophical/theological one. It cannot be a scientific one due to the law of causality.

 

[billwald]

Quote:
How can the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood be falsified?

>By showing that the sediments forming the canyon walls could not have originated in flood conditions. This has been demonstrated time and again.

But 6 Dayers would say that it is scientific evidence that God poofed the layers that way.