[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Barbarian]

I agree science is based on methodological naturalism and isn't ontologically naturalistic. I think where the issues arises is when people think not assuming a supernatural cause, equates to there not being a supernatural cause. Dawkins would argue science assumes no supernatural causes because they don't exhist, therefore a belief in the supernatural is irrational.

No. Dawkins also admits that science can't rule out God. So there you are. Dawkins sees atheism as the only real option. Francis Collins, who is at least as accomplished in biology as Dawkins, believes Jesus is God as the only real option. Both of them recognize the reality of evolution, and can still do good science, because science does not require a particular view of the supernatural.

But as you both point out true scientific inquiry is open-minded, absent any presuppositions.

Both Dawkins and Collins have presuppositions. They just have a means to keep them from interfering with their work.

That materialistic approach to science is what the center for the renewal of culture is against, not science itself.

No, that's wrong. They see Collins as a problem. For them, his science is more important than his faith in God. Their new religion is ID, as the Wedge Document makes clear. And their rather clumsy rework of Of Pandas and People, in which they took an anti-science creationist book, and tried to peddle it as a non-creationist book by substituting "designer" for "God" makes that even clearer.

Sort of instructive of their outlook; remove God, insert their "designer." (which they say might be a "space alien)

 

[Vaccine]

Dawkins also admits that science can't rule out God

Dawkins has been fairly consistent saying the evidence actually rules out God. Show us where Dawkins says science can't rule out God.

Their new religion is ID, as the Wedge Document makes clear

Creationism may be their philosophy, but Intelligent design theory is a scientific theory. ID is no more a religion than the theory of evolution.
A philosophy, like Darwinism, is a set of beliefs that all life evolved from a single organism can be a religion to some .

Also, that "space alien" bit is quote mining.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Dawkins also admits that science can't rule out God

Dawkins has been fairly consistent saying the evidence actually rules out God.

Show us where he says science rules out God.

Show us where Dawkins says science can't rule out God.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator. The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did. An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Barbarian observes:
Their new religion is ID, as the Wedge Document makes clear

Creationism may be their philosophy, but Intelligent design theory is a scientific theory.

That's already settled. It's been examined in court. The fact that IDers copied a Creationist tract word for word, only erasing "God" and substituting "designer", makes that clear. And as you know, they inadvertently released a document making it clear that their motivation is religious, not scientific.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

If you think that sounds like a scientific theory, rather than a religion, then we've located the problem. But there's another reason:

IDer Michael Behe, testifying at the Dover trial:
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

ID is no more a religion than the theory of evolution.

That's easy to refute. Scientists base the theory of evolution on evidence. And as you see, IDer's base their religion on their unusual interpretation of God. ID, as Behe admits, is no more science than a superstitious belief like astrology.

A philosophy, like Darwinism,

Remember, a hypothesis, when tested and supported by evidence, is a theory. Hence, Darwinism is a theory.

Also, that "space alien" bit is quote mining.

Well, let's take a look...

Philip Johnson:
"It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens of high intelligence who did the designing," he says.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Intelligent-design-s-public-defender-3656413.php#page-3

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
Dawkins also admits that science can't rule out God

That observation is incorrect, Dawkins is unable to keep his materialistic presuppositions out of science:
"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Their new religion is ID, as the Wedge Document makes clear

Their religion is Christianity, their philosophy is creationism, and ID is a scientific theory. ID isn't religion anymore than the theory of general relativity is.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

That's already settled. It's been examined in court. The fact that IDers copied a Creationist tract word for word, only erasing "God" and substituting "designer", makes that clear. And as you know, they inadvertently released a document making it clear that their motivation is religious, not scientific.

The court decided whether it would be taught in a public school. Scientific theories, like ID theory, is based on empirical evidence.

If you think that sounds like a scientific theory, rather than a religion, then we've located the problem. But there's another reason:

IDer Michael Behe, testifying at the Dover trial:
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

"Science is like that. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. It's just limited by its methodology to the natural. It does not deny that supernatural causes might exist, but it has no way of approaching them."
Since you said science is not ontologically naturalistic nor denies that supernatural causes exist, your definition doesn't rule out astrology either.

That's easy to refute. Scientists base the theory of evolution on evidence. And as you see, IDer's base their religion on their unusual interpretation of God. ID, as Behe admits, is no more science than a superstitious belief like astrology.

This is from the transcript:
"Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences"
No mention of an unusual interpretation of God.

Remember, a hypothesis, when tested and supported by evidence, is a theory. Hence, Darwinism is a theory.

Darwinism is a belief. Creationism is a belief. Astrology is a belief.

Well, let's take a look...

Philip Johnson:
"It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens of high intelligence who did the designing," he says.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were quoting Dembski, not Johnson. Johnson says he is an ordinary Christian who regularly attends the First Congregational Church in Berkeley. ID is whether design is detectable, not an attempt to define or discover the designer.

 

[Sparkey]

It has been said, Darwin-ism, Creation-ism and Astrology are beliefs.

Is Astronomy a belief? It is the study of the celestial objects but is it a belief? Where do we draw that line? It seems artificial to me.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Dawkins also admits that science can't rule out God

That observation is incorrect

It's exactly right. As you saw, Dawkins says that he can't be be sure that there is no God.

Barbarian observes:
Their new religion is ID, as the Wedge Document makes clear

Their religion is Christianity,

This is wrong. For example, ID is the official doctrine of the "Unification Church" founded by Rev. Myung Moon, who considers himself an improved version of Jesus Christ. One of Moon's ministers is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which invented this religion.

their philosophy is creationism

No. Behe, for example, asserts that common descent is a fact, and Michael Denton, like Dawkins, says he's an agnostic, and that all things were made by natural processes. They worship a designer, whom some of them think might be God, but they also acknowledge that they think it could also be a "space alien." Very weird religion.

and ID is a scientific theory.

Nope. A theory is a hypothesis, which has been repeatedly tested and confirmed by evidence. ID is a religion whose self-proclaimed "governing goals" are:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

A religion, as you see. Just a rather unusual one with scientific pretensions. But declaring so doesn't make it a theory, any more than the denomination of Christian Science is based on theory.

ID isn't religion anymore than the theory of general relativity is.

Obviously, general relativity is not governed by a need to promote the idea that everything was "designed" by God. That's the difference between science and religion.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

That's what they say in public. As you see, they say quite different things when they think no one is listening.

Barbarian observes:
That's already settled. It's been examined in court. The fact that IDers copied a Creationist tract word for word, only erasing "God" and substituting "designer", makes that clear. And as you know, they inadvertently released a document making it clear that their motivation is religious, not scientific.

The court decided whether it would be taught in a public school.

The court's decision noted that it was a religion, and not a scientific theory. It was, as the evidence made clear, based loosely on YE creationism, and as such, it could not be taught in public school.

Scientific theories, like ID theory, is based on empirical evidence.

Wrong. It's based on a desire to make belief in a "designer" (which many IDers think is God) mandatory.

Barbarian said: ↑

If you think that sounds like a scientific theory, rather than a religion, then we've located the problem. But there's another reason:

IDer Michael Behe, testifying at the Dover trial:
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
​

"Science is like that. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. It's just limited by its methodology to the natural. It does not deny that supernatural causes might exist, but it has no way of approaching them."

Since you said science is not ontologically naturalistic nor denies that supernatural causes exist, your definition doesn't rule out astrology either.

That's not a definition. It's just one facet of science. But of course, depending on evidence rules out astrology and ID, as Behe admitted under oath.

From the Dover trial, (Behe's testimony)
Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?

A Yes.

Barbarian observes:

That's easy to refute. Scientists base the theory of evolution on evidence. And as you see, IDer's base their religion on their unusual interpretation of God. ID, as Behe admits, is no more science than a superstitious belief like astrology.​

This is from the transcript:
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

No mention of an unusual interpretation of God.

Note their governing goals, and Johnson's acknowledgement that ID would allow a "space alien" in place of God.

Barbarian Observes:

Remember, a hypothesis, when tested and supported by evidence, is a theory. Hence, Darwinism is a theory.​

Darwinism is a belief.

As Behe admitted, evolution (which he acknowledges to be true) is a scientific theory, but ID is not a theory under the scientific definition of a theory.

Creationism is a belief. Astrology is a belief.

Yes.

Philip Johnson:
"It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens of high intelligence who did the designing," he says.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were quoting Dembski, not Johnson. Johnson says he is an ordinary Christian who regularly attends the First Congregational Church in Berkeley.

If so, it's rather odd. I don't personally know any Christians who think that God is a designer who might be a space alien. But I'm not familiar with the doctrines of Congregationalists.

ID is whether design is detectable, not an attempt to define or discover the designer.

Seems odd then, that they would take a creationist book, replace "God" with "designer" and then publish it as a science book. This is just a rather unusual religion that seems to take beliefs from agnostics, Moonies, Creationists, and others. It seems to have mangled both science and faith, to make this new religion. It's a clumsy mash-up of both things.

It was an intriguing idea, making the "invisible things clearly seen" approachable by science. But it didn't work. Those of us who work in science often have those moments when we can see how His creation reflects His power and glory. For me, it's often when I'm alone, in the stillness of an early morning pond, or on the slope of a bluff overlooking a valley. But science won't do that. If your faith won't bring you there, science can't help you.

There's the real thing out there, and it's accessible to everyone willing to stop and listen. ID is a cheap imitation, that distracts one from the real thing. Man's shoddy imitation of the truth. How unfortunate.

 

[Vaccine]

It's exactly right. As you saw, Dawkins says that he can't be be sure that there is no God.

The issue I raised wasn't whether Dawkin's is 100% certain there is no God, the issue I raised was whether there can be evidence there is no God. As you and Milk-Drops pointed out, science is simply not concerned with, nor has the means to deal with the supernatural. So Dawkins approach to science is different because he is asserting science has evidence that eliminates the supernatural. It's not about what % he's certain, his approach to science includes a means to eliminate the supernatural. To me, this is something all Christians can agree with, Dawkins is abusing the scientific method to advance his personal beliefs.

Which is why there's a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent design theory. This is from uncommon descent:
"Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all.
In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#chptux

This is wrong. For example, ID is the official doctrine of the "Unification Church" founded by Rev. Myung Moon, who considers himself an improved version of Jesus Christ. One of Moon's ministers is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which invented this religion.

Rev. Myung didn't invent ID. Because someone uses a scientific theory to found a church doesn't make it a religion. History has taught us basing a religion on a scientific theory is a bad idea.

No. Behe, for example, asserts that common descent is a fact, and Michael Denton, like Dawkins, says he's an agnostic, and that all things were made by natural processes. They worship a designer, whom some of them think might be God, but they also acknowledge that they think it could also be a "space alien." Very weird religion.

How exactly are you defining "religion"? It seems to include intelligent design theory and Christianity but excludes the theory of evolution, very convenient definition I'd say.

"The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed"
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's exactly right. As you saw, Dawkins says that he can't be be sure that there is no God.

The issue I raised wasn't whether Dawkin's is 100% certain there is no God, the issue I raised was whether there can be evidence there is no God.

No. The issue was whether or not science could say there was no God. The issue was whether or not science could rule out God. And as you see, Dawkins admits that it can't.

As you and Milk-Drops pointed out, science is simply not concerned with, nor has the means to deal with the supernatural. So Dawkins approach to science is different because he is asserting science has evidence that eliminates the supernatural. It's not about what % he's certain, his approach to science includes a means to eliminate the supernatural.

That's not what he said. The evidence of invisible things, clearly seen, is what he denies. His argument is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is the same logical error creationist and IDers make.

To me, this is something all Christians can agree with, Dawkins is abusing the scientific method to advance his personal beliefs.

Which is why there's a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent design theory. This is from uncommon descent:
"Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all.

As the Dover trial made very clear, "ID" is just creationism with a shave and a clean set of clothes. It's still creationism. Indeed, the fact that they could present a creationist book, with "God" replaced with "designer" as the only changes, as an "ID textbook" makes that very clear.

In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based

I notice that the IDers claim to have set up a lab to find some empirical evidence for their doctrines. But so far, nothing. And of course, it doesn't "move backwards." They claim "that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be.", but among themselves, they admit that they start with the assumption of some kind of God (or "space alien"; both are equally likely in ID) and then try to find evidence to support their religious beliefs. Here is their (badly mistaken) premise on which ID is based:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
Discovery Institute preamble to the Wedge Document

So their public pronouncements about the methods and purposes of ID are at odds with the things they admit about it among themselves.

Barbarian observes;z
This is wrong. For example, ID is the official doctrine of the "Unification Church" founded by Rev. Myung Moon, who considers himself an improved version of Jesus Christ. One of Moon's ministers is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which invented this religion.

Rev. Myung didn't invent ID.

More precisely one of his disciples was among the people who invented it. Jonathan Wells admits that he did this because of an order from "Father" to "destroy evolution." A jihad of sorts against science.

Barbarian observes:

No. Behe, for example, asserts that common descent is a fact, and Michael Denton, like Dawkins, says he's an agnostic, and that all things were made by natural processes. They worship a designer, who some of them think might be God, but they also acknowledge that they think it could also be a "space alien." Very weird religion.​

How exactly are you defining "religion"?

A belief based on faith, rather than on physical evidence. Contrast this to scientific theories, which hypotheses which have been tested and supported by evidence.

It seems to include intelligent design theory and Christianity

Both faith-based, as you can see.

but excludes the theory of evolution

Because, as it has been from the start, supported by evidence, tested frequently, and found to have made a large number of verified predictions. A very robust theory.

very convenient definition I'd say.

Reality may be inconvenient, but it is true.

"The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed"

This line of reasoning fell apart when it became clear that no IDer could identify which information was designed, and which was not, unless they had already decided on it beforehand. Dembski has long since ignored requests from scientists to demonstrate that his idea actually works in controlled tests.

 

[Barbarian]

It has been said, Darwin-ism, Creation-ism and Astrology are beliefs.

Is Astronomy a belief? It is the study of the celestial objects but is it a belief? Where do we draw that line? It seems artificial to me.

be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\
1 a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

So scientific theories are beliefs by definition 3, based on evidence. Astrology and ID and Creationism are beliefs by definition 1 and/or 2.

That's where we draw the line. By common usage of the word. The definition misses my favorite usage; "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

 

[Barbarian]

Today, on one of our rabbit-tracking expeditions, Bagel and I found some mallards at the pond. Another of those moments, when the understanding of animal behavior, and how it tracks seasons, came together with an apprehension of His ability to use a few simple rules to create beauty that a photograph can only dimly reflect.

 

[Vaccine]

Excellent sample of his beautiful creation.

We don't see to many mallards in my neck of the woods (Northern NY), got any pictures of armadillos? I hear they're as common in the southeast as deer and turkeys are here. It's rare, but we see black bears and moose around these parts. If I ever get any good pics of those I'll post them.

 

[Barbarian]

Most of the armadillos I see have tire marks on them. Don't see as many of them as I remember a decade or so ago. Might be the dumbest living mammal, judging by their behavior. They get hit a lot crossing roads, because as the car passes over them, they panic and jump up, striking the bottom of the car.

You want to leave them alone. Many of them carry Mycobacterium leprae, the organism that causes leprosy in humans.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It has been said, Darwin-ism, Creation-ism and Astrology are beliefs.

Is Astronomy a belief? It is the study of the celestial objects but is it a belief? Where do we draw that line? It seems artificial to me.

Astronomy deals with horoscopes and magic properties of heavenly bodies. Astrology is the study of heavenly bodies.

 

[Sparkey]

So we have Astrology which may contain beliefs about stars and "heavenly bodies" and we draw a distinction between that and the more ahhhh, shall we call it "metaphysical" ?

Statements and facts that are directly observed may be held true but conclusions based on those observations vary.

 

[Rick W]

So we have Astrology which may contain beliefs about stars and "heavenly bodies" and we draw a distinction between that and the more ahhhh, shall we call it "metaphysical" ?

Statements and facts that are directly observed may be held true but conclusions based on those observations vary.

Ah, Sparrow. You've hit on the essence of science.
Science makes no conclusions. Science is but the gathering of data. It's the "scientist" that makes the conclusion from the data generated through science.
Much like forensics.
A prosecuting attorney uses science to gather data against the defendant. The defense attorney uses science to gather data to support the defendant. Each is focused on what is sought. Sometimes opposing evidence is revealed but more often than not it's overlooked. When one is looking for red things blue items aren't noticed. And of course sometimes it is ignored.
In this manner it can also be said science does not dictate the direction of focus. Again, the scientist makes that decision, again based on previous data generated through science and again founded upon what is sought through an assumption before science was called upon.
The prosecutor assumes the defendant guilty, the defense assumes innocence and through science gathers the data to support each case.

 

[Asyncritus]

Astronomy deals with horoscopes and magic properties of heavenly bodies. Astrology is the study of heavenly bodies.

Hey MD - haven't you got that the wrong way round?

 

[Barbarian]

Science makes no conclusions. Science is but the gathering of data. It's the "scientist" that makes the conclusion from the data generated through science.
Much like forensics.

Actually, there is a process that involves a statistical analysis of the results to generate an objective measure of confidence in a conclusion. So the findings in any particular research aren't controversial, unless the scientist messed up. And that usually gets hashed out in peer review. The bigger picture of what it all means is controversial in details, but as a science progresses, the details get finer and finer.

A prosecuting attorney uses science to gather data against the defendant. The defense attorney uses science to gather data to support the defendant. Each is focused on what is sought. Sometimes opposing evidence is revealed but more often than not it's overlooked. When one is looking for red things blue items aren't noticed. And of course sometimes it is ignored.

That is creationism. Science doesn't work by assuming an answer and looking for things to support it.

In this manner it can also be said science does not dictate the direction of focus. Again, the scientist makes that decision, again based on previous data generated through science and again founded upon what is sought through an assumption before science was called upon.

Pretty much so.

The prosecutor assumes the defendant guilty, the defense assumes innocence and through science gathers the data to support each case.

I was an ergonomist for an insurance company for about 18 years. Having been called upon to testify in a few such cases, I can tell you that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney is primarily interested in finding the truth.

 

[Rick W]

"Science doesn't work by assuming an answer and looking for things to support it."

Water on Mars?
Those rovers are there to look for water... the answer to "Is there or has there ever been water on Mars?"
Assumptions are first made in any research. Grants are given on that very premise.
"Why do you want the money?"
"To look for evidence of water on Mars."

/onlooker
What are you doing?

/Scientist
I don't know. I'm just doing this for no reason at all.

Evolutionists are depicted also by the second part of that exceedingly uplifting cartoon. Darwin made the assumption and evolutionists have been looking to support that assumption ever since.

Where did man come from?
Answer... Evolution.
What needs done? Find the evidence to support evolution.

Where did man come from?
Answer... Creation.
What needs done? Find the evidence to support creation.

Facts are not just gathered to look for something not sought for in ANY research.
Scientists don't just gather a bunch of facts, dump them on the table then sift through them to see what conclusions can be drawn without first having some idea what they are looking for.

Your class-act cartoon does not even mention where the facts came from. Could it be that someone was looking for something by making an assumption it was there?

/Oh, just a pile of facts we found lying around gathered through scientific method for which we have no clue why the effort was taken up in the first place. We had to keep the guy busy doing something or the company would have laid him off.

If I'm looking for something I first make several assumptions:
I assume it can be found.
I look in the last place I assume it would have been.
I can also assume somebody else might know where it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Science doesn't work by assuming an answer and looking for things to support it.

Water on Mars?
Those rovers are there to look for water... the answer to "Is there or has there ever been water on Mars?"

Testing a hypothesis is not assuming an answer. That hypothesis is born out in the discovery that there exists ice on the moon in spite of very low pressures that should have sublimated it off earlier. So the thought is, given the evidence of extensive flooding at one time on the moon, there might be considerable water under the surface. No assumptions necessary.

Assumptions are first made in any research.

Hypotheses. You hear noises in your house and night, and you get out of bed, hearing cabinets being opened. Is it your kid up and doing something after bed time, or is it a burglar? You make some hypotheses, but if you're smart, you don't make assumptions.

Grants are given on that very premise.
"Why do you want the money?"

"To find out if there really is water on Mars."

/onlooker
What are you doing?

/Scientist
"There are reasons to believe there still might be water on Mars. We're going to check that hypothesis."

Evolutionists are depicted also by the second part of that exceedingly uplifting cartoon. Darwin made the assumption

No. He started out thinking that species were immutable, and only after considerable evidence, cited in his book, concluded otherwise. He saw some things he couldn't explain under the then-current paradigm, made a hypothesis about it, and then checked his hypothesis by extensive research. Turns out, ,his hypothesis was correct. Note that even though he was correct, it didn't fix all the misconceptions. Darwin continued to think that inherititance of acquired characteristics was possible, and he didn't realize the particulate nature of inheritance. Hence the modern synthesis, combining Darwinian theory and genetics.

and evolutionists have been looking to support that assumption ever since.

Theory. Remember, Darwin's theory ceased to be a hypothesis once there was extensive evidence for his theory. And remember, numberous Darwinian (and the few non-Darwinian) biologists have been continuously trying to find ways in which Darwin was wrong. The modern synthesis was the result of learning that he was completely wrong about genetics, and yet Morgan, who established discrete genes as a reality, was a complete Darwian.

Where did man come from?
Darwin's hypothesis... Evolution from other primates, most likely first in Africa.

What needs done?

Test the hypothesis. The prediction of primates intermediate between man and other apes was tested and confirmed. We have found many of the predicted species.

Find the evidence to support evolution.

Or to falsify it. For example, genetics, which showed that Darwin was wrong about inherited characteristics. Or punctuated equillibrium, which showed that he was wrong about evolutionary change being slow and constant.

Facts are not just gathered to look for something not sought for in ANY research.

To test hypothesis. In fact, formally, they try to confirm the null hypothesis, that they are wrong in their hypothesis.

Your class-act cartoon does not even mention where the facts came from. Could it be that someone was looking for something by making an assumption it was there?

Testing a prediction. One of the ways we know a theory is right, is when predictions of the hypothesis are found after the fact. Hence, the finding of numerous hominins in Africa is confirmation of the theory.

Oh, just a pile of facts we found lying around gathered through scientific method for which we have no clue why the effort was taken up in the first place.

Many times, that happens. Scientist poke around and learn about things, and then someone looks through the literature and the light comes on as he notices some kind of commonality. Very common thing.

We had to keep the guy busy doing something or the company would have laid him off.

More commonly, a grad student has to find a question worth investigating for his thesis. Companies just lay off scientists when they don't need them.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian observes:
Science doesn't work by assuming an answer and looking for things to support it.

You are quite correct, sir. Science works by assuming there are no explanations outside of what may be concluded from direct observation and testable methods.

No miracles allowed!

View attachment 3797