What if criminal investigations were done the way creationists do science?

[Deadbolt]

Suppose a Murder were investigated using the creationist method, i.e. Start with an absolute conclusion, search for evidence to support it.

For reference, the scientific method is the exact opposite, You start with evidence and reach a conclusion based on it. Thats right, the same method used in forensics to investigate and solve crime is the same method used by geologists, paleontologists, geneticists and biologists to reach their conclusions in support of the Theory of Evolution.

Come to think of it, there was a time when criminal investigations were done by the creationist method, It was called the Inquisition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose a Murder were investigated using the creationist method, i.e. Start with an absolute conclusion, search for evidence to support it.

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc. In addition, he would not be very far away. [bible]Acts 17:27[/bible] Specifically, he would be at the door wanting in. [bible]Revelation 3:20[/bible]

 

[Deadbolt]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc. In addition, he would not be very far away.

Another analogy AV1? This one's fallaciousness is readily apparent the moment one reads it. Suppose the note was forged by another party wishing to frame the named party?


And might I remind you that we're not talking about analogies here. We're talking about the scientific method. Quoting bible verses does not help your argument, it falls under the same category of word games.
I made another thread for those if you care to give us a stumper, But thats not the purpose of this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose the note was forged by another party wishing to frame the named party?

Did you read my post? I said the "murderer" left a note. If the note was "forged by another party," then the murderer didn't leave the note, did he? Who's playing word games here - you or yourself?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Another analogy AV1? This one's fallaciousness is readily apparent the moment one reads it. Suppose the note was forged by another party wishing to frame the named party?


And might I remind you that we're not talking about analogies here. We're talking about the scientific method. Quoting bible verses does not help your argument, it falls under the same category of word games.
I made another thread for those if you care to give us a stumper, But thats not the purpose of this one.

I think the logical corolary to AV's analogy?

"Every detective/crime story author is GUILTY OF MURDER, because, look, there is a book about it"

 

[plindboe]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc.

Rather thousands of self-proclaimed "murderers" mail their confessions to the police, all of them displaying fantastical supernatural accounts conflicting with the evidence at hand. The creationist is the one who takes one account at random and believes it to be the one true confession, no matter what the investigation reveals.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather thousands of self-proclaimed "murderers" mail their confessions to the police, all of them displaying fantastical supernatural accounts conflicting with the evidence at hand. The creationist is the one who takes one account at random and believes it to be the one true confession, no matter what the investigation reveals.

Peter

Oh, man --- lol --- this is absolutely unbelievable! Okie-dokie, Plindboe --- thanks.

 

[corvus_corax]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc. In addition, he would not be very far away.

Oddly, that's not how it usually works out, now is it?

Now back to the OP- Yes, the "guilty (pre-assumed conclusion) until proven innocent" method was used by many Christian societies for far too long.

Thankfully, our courts in the USA do their best to utilize actual evidence to make a conclusion, instead of forcing the evidence into a pre-assumed conclusion.

THIS is why Creationism/Creation Science/Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design fail miserably in the courtrooms. Evolution actually has evidence backing it up. Creationism has bupkiss backing it up.
Not to mention the fact that Creationism (no matter what bad fitting suit it dresses itself up in) is purely religiously based and has absolutely NO objective empirical evidence to back it up.

Creationism often "wins" in a public debate, where rhetoric and emotionalism can sway a crowd. In a courtroom that demands actual evidence, however, the story is completely different.

As AV1611VET is fond of saying, there is NO objective empirical physical evidence for Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oddly, that's not how it usually works out, now is it?

Now back to the OP- Yes, the "guilty (pre-assumed conclusion) until proven innocent" method was used by many Christian societies for far too long.

Thankfully, our courts in the USA do their best to utilize actual evidence to make a conclusion, instead of forcing the evidence into a pre-assumed conclusion.

THIS is why Creationism/Creation Science/Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design fail miserably in the courtrooms. Evolution actually has evidence backing it up. Creationism has bupkiss backing it up.
Not to mention the fact that Creationism (no matter what bad fitting suit it dresses itself up in) is purely religiously based and has absolutely NO objective empirical evidence to back it up.

Creationism often "wins" in a public debate, where rhetoric and emotionalism can sway a crowd. In a courtroom that demands actual evidence, however, the story is completely different.

As AV1611VET is fond of saying, there is NO objective empirical physical evidence for Creationism.

Good job "jumping the gun," Corvis [pun intended]. The OP is in the investigation phase of a murder --- you are jumping to the final phase.

 

[Psudopod]

AVET, we're talking about methodolgy here, not the specific creation event or abotu God himself, so those bible verses aren't really relevant.

The point is, we have a method for dealing with evidence found at a crime - the scientific method. Now, you clearly have some issues with some of the results of scientific enquiry, namely evolution adn the idea that the earth has gone round the sun 4.6 billion times, for example.

As these are the results that come up time after time, there must, in your opinion, be something wrong with the method itself, right? You talked in another thread about Godly paradigms. How would you apply these to a crime scene? What would be the difference with scientific method?

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is, we have a method for dealing with evidence found at a crime - the scientific method.

I was under the impression we were talking about another method.

Suppose a Murder were investigated using the creationist method...

 

[Deadbolt]

We're comparing the methods, discussing it, you know.
That was more of a rhetorical question actually, but you may answer it, I'd like to see you answer actually....Inquisitor.

 

[plindboe]

Oh, man --- lol --- this is absolutely unbelievable! Okie-dokie, Plindboe --- thanks.

Feel free to elaborate.

Peter

 

[EnemyPartyII]

AVET, we're talking about methodolgy here, not the specific creation event or abotu God himself, so those bible verses aren't really relevant.

The point is, we have a method for dealing with evidence found at a crime - the scientific method. Now, you clearly have some issues with some of the results of scientific enquiry, namely evolution adn the idea that the earth has gone round the sun 4.6 billion times, for example.

As these are the results that come up time after time, there must, in your opinion, be something wrong with the method itself, right? You talked in another thread about Godly paradigms. How would you apply these to a crime scene? What would be the difference with scientific method?

Look, you're clearly putting facts in the story, thats totally unfair!

 

[MrGoodBytes]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc.

Indeed. He leaves a note in which he claims that he shot Mr. John Smith in his living room three days ago and left his body lying there. Since the police found Mr. Smith's withered skeleton in an abandoned warehouse with a rusty knife between his ribs, they smile weakly, call a psychologist and continue the manhunt.

The state attorney - you - however, insists that whoever wrote the note must be the murderer because he got the victim's name right, and that every objection the forensics team might have will be answered if they only "keep looking".

 

[Psudopod]

Look, you're clearly putting facts in the story, thats totally unfair!

My bad, I just can't help myself!

 

[Cabal]

Isn't Goddidit the answer to everything?

 

[Psudopod]

I was under the impression we were talking about another method.

We are, adn how it compares to the scientifiic method. Are you actually going to address the post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. He leaves a note in which he claims that he shot Mr. John Smith in his living room three days ago and left his body lying there. Since the police found Mr. Smith's withered skeleton in an abandoned warehouse with a rusty knife between his ribs, they smile weakly, call a psychologist and continue the manhunt.

The state attorney - you - however, insists that whoever wrote the note must be the murderer because he got the victim's name right, and that every objection the forensics team might have will be answered if they only "keep looking".

MrGoodBytes, do you want to address the OP or not?

Mr Smith shoots Mr Brown, then writes a note that he shot Mr Brown and leaves it at the scene.

Then he stands outside the front door while detectives show up and process the scene.

This would be my estimation of what the OP is calling the "Creationist Method."

Is there a problem understanding it, or are you guys, as usual, convoluting?

 

[Psudopod]

This would be my estimation of what the OP is calling the "Creationist Method."

And all the cases where Mr Smith doesn't hang around with a nice confession, but instead cleans up and flees the scene? What do you do then?