Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is derived from the Latin word scientia, which translates to knowledge. Unlike the arts, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. It is not meant to prove theories, but rule out alternative explanations until a likely conclusion is reached.

The scientific method

When conducting research, scientists observe the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.

Ask questions about the observations and gather information.

Form a hypothesis " a tentative description of whats been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

Research must involve deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion.

An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).

An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
Scientific theories and laws

The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven. A few theories do become scientific laws (such as the law of gravity) and laws are generally considered to be without exception " though in fact even some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is just a theory is a lay persons term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-scienc ... ethod.html

One can add to the steps: Publish methodology and conclusions for others to evaluate.

Thus, no pronouncement is entitled to call itself science unless it adheres to the Scientific Method " and conjecture based on unverifiable tales and offering nothing that can be tested does NOT qualify as a science.

Questions for debate:

1) Does Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") meet ANY of the requirements of science?

2) Is claiming to be science while not meeting the criteria a case of fraud (or at least false) claim?

[Danmark]

Enoch2021 sent:

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology...
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

More quote mining from Provine's 1971 book.

Provine is an atheist, philosopher, and critic of intelligent design. He has engaged in prominent debates with theist philosophers and scientists about the existence of God and the viability of intelligent design. He has debated the founder of the intelligent design movement Phillip E. Johnson and the two have a friendly relationship. Provine has stated that he starts his course on evolutionary biology by having his students read Johnson's book Darwin on Trial.[1]
Provine is a determinist in biology, but not a determinist in physics or chemistry, thus rejecting the idea of free will in humans.[2] Provine believes that there is no evidence for God, there is no life after death, there is no absolute foundation for right and wrong, there is no ultimate meaning for life, and that humans don't have free will.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Provine 2015
Notes:
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/pjlect.htm
Provine, William (12 February 1998). "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life". Retrieved 15 March 2011.
http://www.cjas.org/~leng/provine.txt

As noted, Provine he starts his course on evolutionary biology by having his students read Johnson's book Darwin on Trial so he can point out its many flaws, as Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that it contained "no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points".

Creationist have even made a movie based on their basic research tool, quote mining:
Expelled
'Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.[7][13][14] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[15] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[7] It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 11% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_ ... ce_Allowed

Christianity Today gave it a positive review.

[Bust Nak]

And.... Support? You need to show Stupid Atoms creating Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes? In other words, Ink Molecules Authoring Books, for starters....?

Easy enough, evolutionary algorithms.

I can rule "nature" out much the same way as I can rule out the pixels and your keyboard colluding then constructing this post ("CODE"--- Language) that you sent to me.

You mean by assuming?

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

Exactly, constant, as opposed to finite.

Is there something here that's particularly confusing?

Yes, it appears to be non sequitur.

Well ahhh sir, in Prokaryotes you don't have a Nucleus....it's all Cytoplasm. Transcription and TRANSLATION occur simultaneously. Do you know what a CELL is?

Of course, what made you aske that question? And if you knew that prokaryotes you don't have a nucleus, why did you ask your original question?

Firstly, Trial and Error "problem solving" requires Sentience and Intelligence.

No it doesn't. All you need is a mechanism for change, another as a filter and a third for recording successes and failures.

The Interim...well, you have to continue to make "FUNCTIONAL" Proteins or the Cell will Vapor Lock....i.e., Die. It's a stumbling block for "Change".

Hence the "error" part in "trial and error." What seems to be the problem?

Ahhh, Yes you are. What Natural Processes does Natural Selection describe? (And btw, Natural Selection doesn't "describe"...it has no vocal chords and it's not alive; ergo, Reification Fallacy)

You are grasping at straws, we do the describing obviously, we use the phrase "natural selection" to descibe.

Are you saying that because we have the Law of Gravity that Stupid Atoms will "Re-Wire" Prokaryotes..... to Eukaryotes?

Not just gravity, but all the laws of nature together, such as the laws of Thermodynamics, or the conservation of Angular Momentum that you listed before.

Mechanisms please.....?

Mutation, inheritance and cell death.

Read Professor Provine real close...especially the "BOLDED" Part.

What of it? Combustion doesn't burn anything either, you say that like it's some sort of revelation.

Then you have these...

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)...

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."

Not sure what he is getting at, that appears to be non sequitur, why would needing information implies needing to presuppose evolution? do you have to full passage handy?

Yes, I have a BIG PROBLEMS with Pseudo-Science...

Cosmology may look like a science, but it isnt a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you cant do that in cosmology.
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848"1850, 2007.

What an odd thing to suggest, of course you can do repeatbale experiments in cosmology. That's what space probes, and observatory such as LIGO are for.

Yes, the: Walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming, "What Ocean!" scenario, eh?

Apparently so. You do realise the denial in question came form you?

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 71 by Danmark]

Do you have some Semblance of a Substantive Argument...just one?

Let's try an easy on:

Science: the systematic study of the Physical and Natural World through observation and experimentation to acquire knowledge.

(Caveat: do you see the contradiction? "Knowledge" is Immaterial. So they're attempting to acquire IMMATERIAL (Knowledge) via MATERIAL (Physical and Natural World) to explain away IMMATERIAL as Plausible. lol KaBooM! ) It's tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent Athlete's Foot, but I digress:

"A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world." {Emphasis Mine}
[url]http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis[/url]

It's a "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

Then we have...

"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.


So in light of these simple truths, can you please explain HOW in The World these are even VALID HYPOTHESES....

evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/dark energy, billions of years ????

Please, the floor is yours....?

OR

How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software.....?

regards

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 71 by Danmark]

Do you have some Semblance of a Substantive Argument...just one?

Yes. Here it is:
After you once again quote mined from Provine's 1971 book, I demonstrated how you have misrepresented Provine and how misrepresenting the views of scientists is the ONLY argument YEC'rs make, since they have no scientists of their own according to both science and the courts. Creationists demonstrate this dishonesty continuously, as has been well documented on this forum and else where.

If your response to an argument is to claim one hasn't been made, you need to reread.

Provine is an atheist, philosopher, and critic of intelligent design. He has engaged in prominent debates with theist philosophers and scientists about the existence of God and the viability of intelligent design. He has debated the founder of the intelligent design movement Phillip E. Johnson and the two have a friendly relationship. Provine has stated that he starts his course on evolutionary biology by having his students read Johnson's book Darwin on Trial.[1]
Provine is a determinist in biology, but not a determinist in physics or chemistry, thus rejecting the idea of free will in humans.[2] Provine believes that there is no evidence for God, there is no life after death, there is no absolute foundation for right and wrong, there is no ultimate meaning for life, and that humans don't have free will.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Provine 2015
Notes:
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/pjlect.htm
Provine, William (12 February 1998). "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life". Retrieved 15 March 2011.
http://www.cjas.org/~leng/provine.txt

As noted, Provine he starts his course on evolutionary biology by having his students read Johnson's book Darwin on Trial so he can point out its many flaws, as Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that it contained "no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points".

Creationist have even made a movie based on their basic research tool, quote mining:
Expelled
'Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.[7][13][14] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[15] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[7] It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 11% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_ ... ce_Allowed

[rookiebatman]

Do you have some Semblance of a Substantive Argument...just one?

I've seen plenty of substantive arguments from the people pointing out how ridiculous your position is. What would you consider a substantive argument, other than just dogmatically agreeing with you?

"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.


So in light of these simple truths, can you please explain HOW in The World these are even VALID HYPOTHESES....

evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/dark energy, billions of years ????

Please, the floor is yours....?

No, that's okay, you can keep the floor. Go ahead and explain how "God did it" is a valid, testable scientific hypothesis.

[Danmark]

Calling either creationism or "intelligent design" science is dishonest as a matter of law.
Holding:
"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
__ Hon. John E. Jones III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

The Courts are no place to adjudicate matters of Science...who's next MADD? I'm sure Judge Jones levied his vast "Scientific" experience from his days as head of the PA State Liquor Control Board.

The Dover Trial, eh? Lets have a look....

the end of a Triall a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.

Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:

ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."

JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".

So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".

ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence in TOTO.

ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.

JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".

If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

This argument is over and settled and is a gigantic and tiresom waste of time to pursue further, except as a religious notion that has been refuted by science.

....

As usual you did not give a citation for your Wexler quote which was not even one full sentence.
Here's the full quote from Wexler:

"When Judge John E. Jones, III, a United States District Court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that a Pennsylvania school board's intelligent design (ID) policy violated the First Amendment, supporters of teaching evolution were ecstatic. They had good reason to be. The opinion, which ran to 139 pages in length, was a comprehensive and complete victory for ID opponents. To be sure, the opinion is well-written, painstakingly documented, and mostly right. It is not, however, flawless. The opinion's main problem lies in the conclusion that most evolution supporters were particularly pleased with-namely, the judge's finding that ID is not science. The problem is not that ID is science. Maybe it is science, and maybe it isn't. The question is whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science-a question that sounds in philosophy of science-as a matter of law. On this question, the answer is "no," particularly when the overall question posed to the Court is whether teaching ID endorses religion, not whether it is or is not science. The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional."

- See more at: http://www.bc.edu/centers/boisi/publice ... 9IvPo.dpuf

It is clear you do not understand how courts work. On matters of science, they take testimony from experts. Then, when it comes time for the Findings and Conclusions of Law, both sides are permitted to present prepared findings to the Judge. The judge may than have a colloquy with the lawyers before entering his official findings.

Jones properly summarized the evidence from the experts, that ID is not science, but religion. Wexler may disagree with aspects of the findings. Lawyers frequently disagree. Wexler is just saying the judge went farther than necessary, but he is not saying the Judge's decision was not based on the evidence presented. It was, and it establishes that in that trial, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that ID, and virtually every argument you've made, is not based on science.

[Untraveled Trail]

Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?
yes. If not fraud, most certainly misguided. But both, especially ID is pushing the boundaries to fraud.

The Creation stories in the Bible are theology, not history or science.