Eternal Path International Forum - View Single Post

CarlSW · 03-19-2007

Science operates the way it operates. If you really want to understand how science does what it does and how/why it arrives at its conclusions, you can do some research. I'm assuming you are interested in what is factually correct and that it matters to you to speak accurately about what science does or does not say or how science does or does not operate.

My understanding, based in a serious concern for truth and accuracy and a correct understanding of the facts, is that scientists don't know how to study/explore/methodologically scrutinize concepts that are important to those who argue for Creation. 'God' and 'creation from nothing', for example, aren't able to be put under microscopes, statistically or mathematically analyzed, or used to come up with scientific hypothesis. It isn't at all clear how science should proceed to robustly explore the subject.

Science can look at rocks, try to date them, and try to piece things together with other scientists critically reviewing conclusions and pointing out flaws. When they do this, there are only so many ways to explain what they find, within the norms of science's ways of analyzing and talking about its findings. The various aspects to evolution (micro, macro, etc.) theory are just a way of trying to synthesize the data and talk about it scientifically, in accord with lots of attempts to understand, prove and disprove, the claims made by many researchers.

In other words, those who promote evolution as a scientific theory are not lying about their understanding of what the facts are and where the evidence leads and how best to interpret how things got to where they are now.

Any competing notion would have to amass a HUGE amount of information and interpretations and show how well it all worked together, AND survive serious scrutiny. Science proceeds by trying to find flaws in hypothesis. If you want creation to be treated more scientifically, then you have to open it up to harsh criticism and try to prove various aspects false. If it is more or less easy to cast doubt on the claims made, then science is free to wash its hands of the subject.

But philosophy, metaphysics, CAN deal with the subject of intelligent design and creation. In philosophy there is also rigorous scrutiny and serious attempts to disprove claims. Philosophy has room for subjects that aren't easily handled by statistics and physical methods of observation, etc.

If you try to attack the sincerity and seriousness of scientists, you will fail. Showing that creationists are sincere and serious doesn't help if you maliciously slander scientists.

03-19-2007	#6 (permalink)
CarlSW Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 16	Science operates the way it operates. If you really want to understand how science does what it does and how/why it arrives at its conclusions, you can do some research. I'm assuming you are interested in what is factually correct and that it matters to you to speak accurately about what science does or does not say or how science does or does not operate. My understanding, based in a serious concern for truth and accuracy and a correct understanding of the facts, is that scientists don't know how to study/explore/methodologically scrutinize concepts that are important to those who argue for Creation. 'God' and 'creation from nothing', for example, aren't able to be put under microscopes, statistically or mathematically analyzed, or used to come up with scientific hypothesis. It isn't at all clear how science should proceed to robustly explore the subject. Science can look at rocks, try to date them, and try to piece things together with other scientists critically reviewing conclusions and pointing out flaws. When they do this, there are only so many ways to explain what they find, within the norms of science's ways of analyzing and talking about its findings. The various aspects to evolution (micro, macro, etc.) theory are just a way of trying to synthesize the data and talk about it scientifically, in accord with lots of attempts to understand, prove and disprove, the claims made by many researchers. In other words, those who promote evolution as a scientific theory are not lying about their understanding of what the facts are and where the evidence leads and how best to interpret how things got to where they are now. Any competing notion would have to amass a HUGE amount of information and interpretations and show how well it all worked together, AND survive serious scrutiny. Science proceeds by trying to find flaws in hypothesis. If you want creation to be treated more scientifically, then you have to open it up to harsh criticism and try to prove various aspects false. If it is more or less easy to cast doubt on the claims made, then science is free to wash its hands of the subject. But philosophy, metaphysics, CAN deal with the subject of intelligent design and creation. In philosophy there is also rigorous scrutiny and serious attempts to disprove claims. Philosophy has room for subjects that aren't easily handled by statistics and physical methods of observation, etc. If you try to attack the sincerity and seriousness of scientists, you will fail. Showing that creationists are sincere and serious doesn't help if you maliciously slander scientists.