Science and Notscience

[At Peace Without God]

After having read much on this site I am amazed. Truly amazed at the deeply rooted misunderstanding some people have about what science is and often astonished at the things people ascribe to science (and that it most certainly is not).

NOW COME ON PEOPLE!!

SCIENCE IS:
'..a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method'.

SCIENCE IS NOT:
Opposed to religion, infallable, unjustified, illogical(1), satanic, flippant, inflexible or motivated by anything other than knowledge(2)

(1) compared to most other institutions anyway
(2) dont forget that in some cases knowledge = power = money

Science is a system of beliefs but it is not a religion. It is the belief that a test can be designed to ascertain the validity or otherwise of an hypothesis. It is also the belief that once a hypothesis has been shown to be robust, it can be used as a principle. In this way it is an extreemly useful and powerful system - one that is in its entirety quite robust.

So thou shalt not disregard science out of hand and make spurious claims of its wild inaccuracies and errors (especially if this is just because you cant reconcile it with other beliefs). The very nature of science is it is self regulating and thus vaguaries, miscalculations and invalidities are eventually eliminated.

Nor shalt thou take its name in vain - the only reason christianforums.com can exist is absolutely, entirely, 100%, definitely and undeniably ALL (every last bit of it) thanks to science.

you can not have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Matthew777]

SCIENCE IS:
'..a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method'.

SCIENCE IS NOT:
Opposed to religion, infallable, unjustified, illogical(1), satanic, flippant, inflexible or motivated by anything other than knowledge(2)

"What is a Scientific Theory?


Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]theo·ry[/font] n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]sci·ence[/font] n. [font=Arial, Helvetica]1[/font] the state or fact of knowledge [font=Arial, Helvetica]2[/font] systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]nat·u·ral·ism[/font] n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!] The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find."
http://trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Arikay]

Bah, Ok, I'm thinking I should start replying to Matthew like I do with Bevets, only replying to his own words and not his cut and pastes.

 

[At Peace Without God]

Mathew.. Its all very well for you to re-hash the standard nit-pickery (what were you saying anyway?) however the point I am trying to make is there seems to be a general lack of understanding of what science is and does exibited by many members of this board.

Now I put this too you.

If science conclusivly proved the absence of God there would be a protest from the church - it would be discussed - people would choose their allegences and eventually the church would probably simply ignore the fact that God didn't exist and go on in stubbon defiance.

If science conclusivly proved the existence of God there would initially be a protest from the 'scientific community' - it would be discussed - and as more peer assessment came in verifying the existence of god, more people would come to accept it. The existence of God would then become part of scientific doctrine and the churches would be singing and dancing in the streets.

The point is science might have a problem dealing with this question but its credibility dosn't rest on its answer. So too the people involved in science might have a problem digesting the news however being scientists - they are used to adjusting their outlook as new data comes to light.

 

[cfbro1]

After having read much on this site I am amazed. Truly amazed at the deeply rooted misunderstanding some people have about what science is and often astonished at the things people ascribe to science (and that it most certainly is not).

NOW COME ON PEOPLE!!

SCIENCE IS:
'..a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method'.

SCIENCE IS NOT:
Opposed to religion, infallable, unjustified, illogical(1), satanic, flippant, inflexible or motivated by anything other than knowledge(2)

(1) compared to most other institutions anyway
(2) dont forget that in some cases knowledge = power = money

Science is a system of beliefs but it is not a religion. It is the belief that a test can be designed to ascertain the validity or otherwise of an hypothesis. It is also the belief that once a hypothesis has been shown to be robust, it can be used as a principle. In this way it is an extreemly useful and powerful system - one that is in its entirety quite robust.

So thou shalt not disregard science out of hand and make spurious claims of its wild inaccuracies and errors (especially if this is just because you cant reconcile it with other beliefs). The very nature of science is it is self regulating and thus vaguaries, miscalculations and invalidities are eventually eliminated.

Nor shalt thou take its name in vain - the only reason christianforums.com can exist is absolutely, entirely, 100%, definitely and undeniably ALL (every last bit of it) thanks to science.

you can not have your cake and eat it too.

I would have to disagree, science is knowledge, thats all
dictionary definition is 'science -n.- the state of knowing'

 

[JohnR7]

you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Ops, you forgot to add that: "evolution is not science".

 

[corvus_corax]

Ops, you forgot to add that: "evolution is not science".

Once again, assertion without evidence.

However, you're correct in one sense. He should have provided examples of what is and is not considered science.
For example, Creationism and ID cannot, in any way, be called Science with a straight face.

 

[Randall McNally]

I would have to disagree, science is knowledge, thats all
dictionary definition is 'science -n.- the state of knowing'

One can rarely ascertain a term's complexity and nuance by focusing on the most simplistic definition.

 

[JohnR7]

For example, Creationism and ID cannot, in any way, be called Science with a straight face.

I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science, but there is no reason that it could not be science. There is no conflict between creationism and science, because the only requirement for creationism is to believe that God is the creator. To have a creation, you have to have a Creator. Otherwise you would call it something else besides creation.

Once again, assertion without evidence.

I have shown time and again a lot of what they call evolution is not science. Some of it is creative writting, some of it is outright fiction. It is seldom novel, they lost that when Sagan died.

 

[corvus_corax]

I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science, but there is no reason that it could not be science. There is no conflict between creationism and science, because the only requirement for creationism is to believe that God is the creator.

If one is thinking of a literal interpretation of Genesis (Im not saying you are), then it goes a bit beyond that.

To have a creation, you have to have a Creator. Otherwise you would call it something else besides creation.

I cal it a universe. When I refer to "Creation" Im usually speaking in biblespeak.

I have shown time and again a lot of what they call evolution is not science. Some of it is creative writting, some of it is outright fiction. It is seldom novel, they lost that when Sagan died.

You have shown that you can post statements that are (time and again) correctly and soundly rebutted.

 

[Valkhorn]

I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science, but there is no reason that it could not be science.

That speaks VOLUMES. You don't think you know if it's science, yet you claim that it cannot 'not' be science?

Let's examine this closely:

"I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science,
but there is no reason that it could not be science. "​

​

Two statements:

1. I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science
2. There is no reason that it could not be science

Removing the double negative from the second statement:

There is no reason that it could not be science

We get:

There is reason that it could be science

Which means that John has said:

1. I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science
2. There is reason that it could be science

Isn't that a contradiction?!!?

I would love for John to actually post evidence or substantiation as to why ID or Creationism could be science.

So far, from every advocate of the hypotheses there has never been evidence put forward that it is in any way scientific.
​

​

 

[JohnR7]

Isn't that a contradiction?!!?



​

It is just a reflection of my ability to be able to use the English language. Science and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[At Peace Without God]

I do not know if creationism or ID IS Science, but there is no reason that it could not be science.

Other than the obvious one being that they aren't science.

There is no conflict between creationism and science....

There is no conflict between science and anything. Science will accept everything - but only when its been discovered, quantified and quallified. Creationism oftenb conflicts with science by ignoring parts of science when it needs to to get out of philosopical binds.

... because the only requirement for creationism is to believe that God is the creator. To have a creation, you have to have a Creator. Otherwise you would call it something else besides creation.

This is a very slimmed view of creationism.

I have shown time and again a lot of what they call evolution is not science.

evolution is a principal of natual science. It is a basic concept that can be written down in a few words. It is not a philosopical movement.

Some of it is creative writting, some of it is outright fiction. It is seldom novel, they lost that when Sagan died.

Irony meter climbing

 

[:æ:]

The whole notion that science can operate under supernatural considerations is entirely ludicrous, and anyone advancing such a notion immediately has demonstrated a profound ignorance of what science is and how it works.

Science works through the repeatability of observations. The more something is repetitively observed, the more our confidence grows that the observed phenomenon is representative of an underlying regularity of the universe. HOWEVER, the postulated ability of a deity to interrupt the regularities of the universe at-will perfectly undermines those principles. Science only works because we presume the absence of the effects of intermeddling supernatural beings.

And to the guy whining about "philosophical naturalism," let me ask you a question: When you get ready to leave your house, and you move to fetch your car keys, do you ever stop to consider that perhaps some supernatural being -- a demon, a god, a djinn, whatever -- has taken the liberty of relocating your keys for you? Or do you expect to find them where you left them?

THAT is what I'm talking about. You, too, operate as though there were no supernatural forces at work affecting the reality you observe. THAT is the limitation of science. Scientific progress would come to a screeching halt if scientists were forced to find ways to rule out intermeddling effects of supernatural beings tainting their data. Until you can devise a reliable method to do that, I don't want to hear you complaining about how the scientific method doesn't happen to have anything to say about your pet deity.

:æ:

 

[Beastt]

Ops, you forgot to add that: "evolution is not science".

You've been over this at least a dozen times in a dozen threads and not once have you been successful at supporting that accusation, John. And the reason you can't support it is simply because it isn't true and therefore not supportable.

 

[mikeynov]

"What is a Scientific Theory?


Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]theo·ry[/font] n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]sci·ence[/font] n. [font=Arial, Helvetica]1[/font] the state or fact of knowledge [font=Arial, Helvetica]2[/font] systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]nat·u·ral·ism[/font] n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!] The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find."
http://trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Isn't the guy who runs trueorigins a lawyer or something? What's with lawyers and evolution? Anyways...

lol I love laypeople when they get on their podium and lecture scientists about science. Note that the guy from trueorigins never actually shows us how the supernatural could be incorporated into the scientific method - seemingly, the only supernatural element he would allow in science happens to precisely match his own presuppositions. What if other supernatural explanations sought to be incorporated into science? I'd love to see a creationist's response in that sort of scenario.

How long have you been here without having picked up the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism? I ask because you pasting this would seem to imply that you actually agree with the author's semi-insane rant. I know a lot of scientists, but strangely enough, I really don't know many (if any) who subscribe to 'philosophical naturalism.' If anything, scientists, in my experience, tend to be very humble people who go out of their way to avoid a priori rejection of ideas that contradict their own.

P.S. Weren't you leaving?

 

[JohnR7]

If one is thinking of a literal interpretation of Genesis (Im not saying you are), then it goes a bit beyond that.

It depends on how literal. It maybe a bit of a stretch for science to accept that Eve was having a religious discussion with the snake. I think that science can accept that we can communicate with the animals to some degree, but not usually to that extent. It does go to show that you do not need a spirit to talk about God, just a soul is good enough for that. Of course the snake got it wrong, because snakes are not spiritual.

 

[JohnR7]

You've been over this at least a dozen times in a dozen threads and not once have you been successful at supporting that accusation, John. And the reason you can't support it is simply because it isn't true and therefore not supportable.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. A lot of what they call evolution over the years has not only turned out to not be true. Some of it has turned out to be a hoax.

 

[Jet Black]

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. A lot of what they call evolution over the years has not only turned out to not be true. Some of it has turned out to be a hoax.

you conveniently ignore the masses that are not hoaxes and are true. hoaxes are relatively minor and rare and get unconvered by scientists.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. A lot of what they call evolution over the years has not only turned out to not be true. Some of it has turned out to be a hoax.

That's simply false. "A lot of what they call evolution" has not turned out not to be true. That's simply a lie. Some very few cases have turned out to be hoaxes, sometimes played by scientists, and ALWAYS exposed by scientists. Nevertheless, the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, which is why scientists the world over, of every religious belief, accept it. The only people who DON'T accept it are those whose religious beliefs it voilates.