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?

[Divine Insight]

almost the entire page is relevant.

Relevant to what? What point do you think the page you pointed to is making?

contrary to what some would like for you to believe, science isn't the end all, be all when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.

the piece also spells out various errors people make in this regard.

This is clearly a paper that is addressing students. The types of errors that it covers are errors made by laypersons. Scientists have been through rigorous courses along these lines and are already aware of the pitfalls and how to best avoid them.

Scientists are human however, and they are prone to human error. This is why science requires peer reviews and even totally independent experimentation.

Science as a large community has all these pitfalls covered. I looked over this page and reading it reminded me of some of my basic "Science 101 Classes" from way back in high school.

Do you think that scientists aren't trained in critical thinking skills?

If you showed this link to any credible scientist they would no doubt say, "Yep. Been there and done that in my undergraduate days. So what's your point?"

In fact, they usually have far more advanced graduate-level courses on critical thinking skills after that.

[Excubis]

In my opinion creationism is not scientific but would say ID is. Now I don't agree with either but ID has at least some logical stand point. Also ID doesn't go against any measurable or observational facts so no real contradiction there. Yet also in saying that we cannot test the theory of ID but it does make sense, in means that in time we (humans) could potentially through our expanding understanding of the universe may be able to create such a thing like the universe as well.

I do not prescribe that the notion of ID is why the laws are motion, gravity, ect.. work. It works because everything has to or it simply wouldn't be at all. As far as creationism, it has no measurable or observational validity, and simply for the fact it disregards empirical data for sake of belief.

Just imagine if we still lived in that world, no cars, no planes, no phones, no light bulb, no electricity, and no computers or internet for religious people to spread misinformation. Anyone who thinks the contrary should really brush up on their history of how long the fear of being labeled a heretic kept free thinkers silent.

[whatsit]

Relevant to what? What point do you think the page you pointed to is making?

you claim to have "been there and done that", so why are you asking me what the page is about?

are you saying it isn't relevant to this discussion?
yes, no?

[Excubis]

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

www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/6-knowledge.htm[/quote]

Well first of all this link is a philosophical stand point on science which is not what science is at all period. Why isn't it because of methodology which in turn brings about unchanging empirical data. I maybe making an assumption but I think you believe theory is a philosophical belief and it is not.

Yes it is true that many theories have been overturned but the laws that stemmed from those theories have never been. Now one example of theory is electrical theory but has many laws with in it ie... ohms law. Also all technology especially computers are based on theories which has laws that govern the mechanics of said theory. Just really think about this the process in which electricity is governed are laws but the exact mechanism is a theory which is the basis for electronic data processing. Newer generation computer run on quantum algorithms which have no laws and exist in a state of pure theory since we cannot observe the mechanism by which they work. So there is no correlation between philosophy and the scientific method. Philosophy by definition is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, existence, and self. There is more to it but it is not science it is based on logical reasoning where many fields or science are not. This means common sense does not apply to most of science, but does to philosophy.

[Bust Nak]

you claim to have "been there and done that", so why are you asking me what the page is about?

are you saying it isn't relevant to this discussion?
yes, no?

Well, I've skim through it and it isn't relevant to this discussion. This topic isn't about the nature of knowledge, but whether creationism is science or not.

Interestingly, the article suggested hypothesis progress to theories then progress to law as it gains supporting evidence. That's a pretty glaring mistake to get into a textbook.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, read up on electric theory, general theory of relativity, all are theories with laws that came out of the theory. Not the the law before the theory, the laws actually support the theory. Hmmmm just plain wrong.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

sorry tired totally took wrong way I think its 5 am here.

[Goat]

almost the entire page is relevant.

contrary to what some would like for you to believe, science isn't the end all, be all when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.

the piece also spells out various errors people make in this regard.

so, what should i do in this regard?
copy/paste the entire piece?

i've been accused far too many times on this site of quote mining.

you know what they say "darned if you do and darned if you don't"

What you do is provide the information, and then post the source so that it can be seen if the statement you make can is taken out of context. That is providing a source, and providing the information. Then , someone can go to the source, and look at context themselves. If is out of context, they can show why your interpretation is incorrect.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, read up on electric theory, general theory of relativity, all are theories with laws that came out of the theory. Not the the law before the theory, the laws actually support the theory. Hmmmm just plain wrong.

"Laws" in science is obsolete terminology. There are things that are grandfathered in by tradition. IT basically is a raw descriptive description about what happens. The theory comes into play to make a model of why of what is happening.

The law of gravity is 'Mass accelerates to larger masses at such and such a rate'. The Theory of Gravity (also known as general relativity) says that the space around the mass is warped.

[Enoch2021]

.
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.

Hey Zzyzx, long time. I hope you and yours are doing well.

I have an issue with your 1st Step in the Scientific Method, it's not "make an observation or observations" it's: Observe A Phenomenon. It follows this motif...

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in Reality so as to afford the ability to TEST it.

"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}
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... hypothesis

The Hypothesis is an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) or "Not That" (Null's).

You can't just Observe "Nouns"....

If it was just "Make an Observation" then let's do it:

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed)

OK what's the TEST? Set up the Experiments, then please Elucidate...

What are the Dependent/Independent//Control Variables of the TESTS?

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations." {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation")... Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...

[In the daytime] When you open your eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which then the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.

Viola, A Tree.

It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"---of Nouns.

cont...