PDA

View Full Version : The "Creation Science" Challenge


Achilles
12-17-2007, 11:02 PM
I heard one of the YouTubers I subscribe to issue this challenge the other day and I thought I would pass it along. I can't imagine there will be a lot of responses, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.

Here it goes:

Please provide an example of one useful scientific theory that includes god as a working factor. I realize that "useful" probably needs to be operationally defined, but for the sake of argument, I'd like to leave it as-is for now.

Thanks to everyone in advance for their participation!

Jae Onasi
12-17-2007, 11:35 PM
Why mix the metaphysical with the physical in the first place?

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 11:36 PM
Besides, the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Put the Lord your God to the Test".

Achilles
12-17-2007, 11:56 PM
Why mix the metaphysical with the physical in the first place?Perhaps the challenge is best suited for those that accept that "creation science" is an actual endeavor (that was the audience for the YT challenge as well). Examples would include proponents of intelligent design and their ilk. I hope that helps.

Tommycat
12-18-2007, 12:11 AM
Besides, the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Put the Lord your God to the Test".
Seems rather convenient... Sounds an awful lot like "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Corinthian
12-18-2007, 12:24 AM
There's not a lot of point in doing scientific tests on something we have no means of perceiving, anyway. What are you going to do, distill Space-Time until you get an Essence of One, where One = God?

John Galt
12-18-2007, 12:57 AM
There's not a lot of point in doing scientific tests on something we have no means of perceiving, anyway. What are you going to do, distill Space-Time until you get an Essence of One, where One = God?

Sounds like Pantheism to me.

edit @ achilles: "Proponents of Intelligent Design and their ilk..." I'm gonna have to start using that one in everyday conversation.

Jae Onasi
12-18-2007, 01:20 AM
Perhaps the challenge is best suited for those that accept that "creation science" is an actual endeavor (that was the audience for the YT challenge as well). Examples would include proponents of intelligent design and their ilk. I hope that helps.

It's not that I don't understand, I just don't see the point of wasting the effort.

Achilles
12-18-2007, 01:29 AM
It's not that I don't understand, I just don't see the point of wasting the effort."Creation scientists" want to be taken seriously in the scientific community. They think that "goddidit" should be a satisfactory basis for scientific theory. Providing one single useful scientific theory that includes god as a working factor should go a long way toward doing that.

Considering all the scientists that claim that they and their work have been snubbed, plus all the controversy that we hear about, and all the press that the Discovery Institute get, you'd think that there would be at least one.

Anyone that wants to see the clip that inspired this thread (read: the clip I plagiarized) can see it here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MrY7WmbWSn8).

Jae Onasi
12-18-2007, 01:42 AM
You can't prove or disprove metaphysical involvement in the physical, nor can the physical be used to prove or disprove the metaphysical, as you well know. I suppose if you include 'entertainment for the anti-religious' as one of the criteria for success of this, then it might have some merit to some viewers, but otherwise it's a fruitless exercise.

Achilles
12-18-2007, 01:46 AM
You can't prove or disprove metaphysical involvement in the physical, nor can the physical be used to prove or disprove the metaphysical, as you well know. I suppose if you include 'entertainment for the anti-religious' as one of the criteria for success of this, then it might have some merit to some viewers, but otherwise it's a fruitless exercise. *shrugs* Dunno what to tell you, Jae. "Creation scientists" want to be given credence. In order to earn that, they'll have to do some actual science. Don't get upset with me for the predicament they've put themselves in.

Jae Onasi
12-18-2007, 01:55 AM
I'm not upset at you. :)

Aeroldoth
12-18-2007, 02:13 AM
I stumbled across a web page the other day of a person who made a public offering of $10,000 for proof of Intelligent Design. The page had been up for a while so, I guess nobody has yet been able to do so.

Achilles
12-18-2007, 02:21 AM
I stumbled across a web page the other day of a person who made a public offering of $10,000 for proof of Intelligent Design. The page had been up for a while so, I guess nobody has yet been able to do so.Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html)

My favorite line from that article?
That sound you hear is the scraping of goal posts being moved. :D

MdKnightR
12-18-2007, 02:46 AM
Creation Science = Oxymoron :D

Achilles
12-18-2007, 02:49 AM
Creation Science = Oxymoron :D
Notice I always use quotes? :D

Aeroldoth
12-18-2007, 02:50 AM
I tried to read the article but my mouse moved all by itself to the "next" button. It also deleted the page from my history... I couldn't stop it! Oh well, guess I'll never know what the rest of it said. :(

Achilles
12-18-2007, 02:52 AM
tsk, tsk...Know thy enemy, Aeroldoth.

;)

Aeroldoth
12-18-2007, 03:00 AM
Apparently I know too little. I'm more than a little surprised that Ben Stein is behind this movie. Sure, he may have served a Republican White House but I nonetheless had a good deal of respect for his intellect.

I must admit to being rather incredulous at this.

EDIT: Unless, perhaps... he sees a cash cow worth milking?

Achilles
12-18-2007, 03:05 AM
Apparently I know too little. I'm more than a little surprised that Ben Stein is behind this movie. Sure, he may have served a Republican White House but I nonetheless had a good deal of respect for his intellect. I know. I'm crushed. I considered Stein a role model for many years.

EDIT: Seen this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JEPqLKErXpI) yet?

Corinthian
12-18-2007, 03:34 AM
That's a fairly safe bet, given that proving the existence of God is impossible, unless the Babel Fish leaps into my ear at some moment.

*Crickets chirp*

Nope.

Aeroldoth
12-18-2007, 03:53 AM
I know. I'm crushed. I considered Stein a role model for many years.
I'm sorry. :(

Darth InSidious
12-18-2007, 10:11 AM
I suppose you could make an argument for the Higgs-Boson, although it doesn't in fact 'include' a deity, but is rather called 'the god particle' because...all right, I admit, this is stretching my knowledge of physics to its outermost limits. :p

swfan28
12-18-2007, 01:13 PM
Please provide an example of one useful scientific theory that includes god as a working factor.There are none. This is because by definition a scientific theory can be falsified. This means that a scientific theory makes predictions that can be put through empirical testing and proven either right or wrong. Even if observations and test results support the predictions made by a theory they do not prove it correct. In fact no scientific theory can ever be proven to be absolute truth. Scientific theories are to be thought as models that are built on the best knowledge at the time but may be proven wrong in the future. Another property of scientific theories is that they can also be altered when the observations do not support the predictions without abandoning them completely. Good example of this is Newton's theory of gravity. It was proven to be inaccurate for systems where relative velocities approach the speed of light. The theory was revised by Einstein and the resulting general relativity makes almost same predictions as Newton's theory for systems with slower relative speeds and away from objects with large masses. In fact Newton's theory is a linearization of the general relativity.

A "theories" such as Intelligent Design or existence of God cannot be classified as scientific theories because they are based on truths and dogmas instead of hypothesis and predictions. These can be neither questioned nor changed which means that such theories can never be proven wrong or right for that matter. Another example of this kind of pseudo science is astrology.

I am aware that even some of the theories that are currently supported by majority of scientists do include assumptions that do not fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory. Good example of this is Darwin's evolution theory. Currently the fossils found throughout the World do not make a complete series that would prove the prediction, evolution, to be absolutely correct but they do not prove it wrong either. The gaps in scientific theories should never be filled with supernatural explanations, which is the case with intelligent design. Science and religion should be kept separate. This does not mean that for a person to be a good scientist he or she must be also atheist. A scientist must simply avoid trying to fill the gaps in the theory with beliefs.