RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Creationism and Peer Review< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,15:56   

Quote
Modern "science" is no longer the pursuit of truth where ever it leads, but is instead an exercise in peer pressure, group-think and herd instinct. If the "in" paradigm says "this," then no legitimate scientist can propose "that."

It is not a matter of evidence, scientific method, or openness to truth; it is an adaptation of a specific worldview (in this case, secularism/materialism/naturalism) that can tolerate no challenges to that philosophy.

Ironically, evolutionists and creationists accept the same scientific discoveries and evidence, examine the same evidence, yet reach different conclusions. Why? There are certainly presuppositions on both sides which determine the direction in which each will look for answers.

But wouldn't it be surprising if it turned out that, objectively, there might be more evidence to support the contentions of creation scientists than those of materialists and naturalists? I will even go so far as to say that the basic tenets of materialism and naturalism are impossible according to the very laws of nature that evolutionists hold in such high regard. In other words, some of the faith tenets held by evolutionists actually contradict other of their faith tenets.

Until adherents to evolution learn to approach other theories, other ideas such as those offered by creation scientists with an open mind, they will be holding their minds closed and captive to a certain set of preconceptions. They will be deliberately limiting their range and scope of scientific discovery.

Ironic, isn't it?


Read it here.

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,16:06   

Ironic? No. Projection? Yes.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,16:27   

I SO recognise this from the guy I'm discussing with right now. I still find it hard to address, but maybe that's because I'm not yet familiar enough with the importance of peer-reviewed papers.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,16:39   

Let's see if my comment appears.
Quote
Scientists do not "start with the assumption that there is no God." Scientists start with the assumption that what is observed, tested, and can be repeated is true. There may be other things that are true, but science measures physical phenomena just as accounting counts dollar amounts.

Accounting isn't supposed to be about art, and science is not supposed to be about the supernatural. It is not a metaphysics. Science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science is about facts.

Peer-review is not infallible? Well, nothing is infallible, and certainly throughout history nothing has proved more changeable than the "unchanging truths of the Bible." These change with the wind. Everything they told us about "scientific evidence for God" in church has dropped off the map in favor of intelligent design and whatnot. Well, soon that will drop off the map too, in favor of the newest creationist fad.

Science is cumulative, but creationists are always starting from scratch. That's a pretty good indication of which one works.

You may as well argue that an accountant checking another accountant's figures is infallible and flawed, and prejudiced because it didn't assume God. You may as well argue that taking your car to the shop is atheistic, because the shop isn't going to invoke God but instead go at your car with a lot of materialist wrenches. You may as well boycott all the medicines and surgical techniques that evolutionary biology has given you.

All those people who were initially rejected by their peers persevered and were ultimately accepted <i>precisely because</i> their peers found flaws in their work and suggested changes. It is unlikely that these same people would have had their names attached to their revolutionary concepts had they not been forced to endure the rigors of peer review. Likely, someone else would have come up with idea (science abounds with stories of simultaneous discovery) and presented it in a manner that needed less correction, making that person, rather than Mayer, the formulator of the First Law.

I am not aware that Mayer or any other scientist whose discovery met with initial skepticism ever became bitter about peer review. Only creationists whine about peer review, because that is the tribute that superstition pays to genius. One thing for sure, creationists will continue to have decades of failure to look forward to. I notice that creationists never cite the work of earlier creationists, but only appropriate the quotes of legitimate scientists for their own purposes!

Why isn't "creationist research" cumulative, like science?


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,17:04   

Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 03 2008,16:27)
I SO recognise this from the guy I'm discussing with right now. I still find it hard to address, but maybe that's because I'm not yet familiar enough with the importance of peer-reviewed papers.

You don't have to be familiar with peer review to adress this crap.

The guy accuses science of excluding supernaturalism.
No shit! He just learn the definition of "science".

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:34   

Let's see if my replies see the light of day, now.

*edited to add - The supreme irony is that my professors are religious and I'm going to a religious grad school. The standard that they hold me to has nothing to do with my personal atheism. If I design a bad website or a bad database and then invoke God, I'll flunk. End of story.*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,23:12   

Kristine, I see your comment (and a later one) did appear. I also sent off something which has just been added:
Quote
Far from being censored, the Intelligent Design community has its own 'scientific' journal, Proceedings in Complexity and Design, which has not been appeared in over two years. No hypotheses are being proposed, no theories are being tested, no research is being done and so there is nothing to publish.

Bob Ellis said 'evolution scientists do start with the assumption that there is no God, finish with the assumption that there is no God, and allow for no possibility whatsoever in their research that there may be a God.'
This is complete and utter rubbish. There are many evolutionary biologists who are Christian or otherwise believe in a God.

I agree that all evidence will fit in with a version of the creation story and that is why it is not science. There is no conceivable finding that cause someone to say 'Oh. It looks like God did not do it.'

On the other hand, the results that Theophrastus Bombastus says would make him consider that evolution might be correct would, in fact, cause major, major problems for the theory of evolution.

The results Bombastus says might make him reconsider are a group of fruit flies turning into hummingbirds

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,09:09   

Gee, something observed in the universe, like cosmic background information, is not "in the lab," and therefore not evidence. What a fricking loser.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,09:13   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 04 2008,08:09)
Gee, something observed in the universe, like cosmic background information, is not "in the lab," and therefore not evidence. What a fricking loser.

I meant radiation. :P

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
  8 replies since Feb. 03 2008,15:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]