should creationists be allowed in science?

[Shadow1]

if there's no different theories, how will that be interresting? :/

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There is no rule that says the supernatural is not a legitimate area of scientific study.

Science can and does address the issue of the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, full of creatures and other forces that capriciously interfere with the behavior of the natural universe. Specifically, when evidence for the existence of this supernatural universe (or any of its creatures or forces) is presented, scientists peer-review it to assess its validity.

However, the Rule of Laplace is customarily invoked: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect. The assertion that a supernatural universe exists contradicts the scientific method, which has been exhaustively and recursively peer-reviewed by its own principles for half a millennium and never come close to being falsified. Therefore any assertion which claims that the scientific method is false (it is based on the solid, well-tested premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior) is one of the most astoundingly extraordinary assertions ever made. It had better be accompanied by some very good evidence before science has to pay any attention to it.

So far that has never happened.

You mean that in order to be allowed to do science, one has to fulfill prerequisites in order to be qualified or capable?

Arguably the most important task of the scientist is to peer-review the work of other scientists. This is the key to the integrity of the entire system. Therefore a scientist must, indeed, satisfy some minimal criteria regarding (in what is arguably decreasing order of importance) integrity, intelligence and education.

A person who claims that the scientific method is false, without any extraordinary evidence to support that belief, suffers from a lack of integrity, intelligence or education.

 

[Skeptical]

I did

I think we are coming closer to understanding this whole "allowing" business.

Actually far from being something anyone can do, it seems quite specific, regardless whether one is talking about re-forestation or professional science as a career

That is science as a career. Doing it for money.

However, science itself is something anyone can do, as long as they follow its basic principles. Of course, the fact that anyone can do it does not mean they will do it well. Most people who try will end up doing it very badly. Like everything worthwhile, to do it excellently takes training, and experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is science as a career. Doing it for money.

However, science itself is something anyone can do, as long as they follow its basic principles. Of course, the fact that anyone can do it does not mean they will do it well. Most people who try will end up doing it very badly. Like everything worthwhile, to do it excellently takes training, and experience.

and there you have part of it
anything performance based is "allowed" by training and experience

 

[Saquist]

I have been reading a science book called HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, EVOLUTION OF EARTH AND LIFE THROUGH TIME. by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe. i have seen this book in my old high school. Not one that was tought out of but in the library.

this is not in the book, but listen to Carl Sagans thoughts. "Where did God come from. If we decide this is an unanswerable question, why dont we just save a step and include the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. or, if we say God always existed, why not save a step and say the universe always existed"?
first, i would just like to say, if scientists say, they will not allow the supernatural into science, why go and make truth claims about it. if scientists are saying you are not allowed to bring your religions into our schools to be tested as a possibility, then how do they get the right to make truth claims about those religions. they dont let the religions share answers and work with them and then tell everyone they have no answers, well maybe because they limmit creationists possibilities to examine? i know this sounds bias of me, ha, its just resentment. now resentments aside, i want to ask a few questions.
"science must proceed without any appeal to beliefs or supernatural explanations, not because such beliefs or explanattions are necessarily untrue, but because we have no way to investigate them. for this reason science makes up no claim about the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural or spiritual realm".
ok, i can understand that IF there is no way to investiigate the supernatural(wich is a diffrent topic but i am fully convinced you can study the supernatural, and it would be the same way as science finds a lot of there answers) then not to allow it into science. but even they themselves say that theres the possibility that those are not neccessarily untrue. therefore stands my question. if there is a possibility, that there might have been or is a supernatural process should it not always be allowed for examineing into science. lets say that there is a supernatural proccess that has occured. lets say that there was a God who created the universe. Would that not clash with evolutions theory of the begining? therefore should not the supernatural be examined? If you limmit every possibilty down to one does not mean that one is right. but if you limmit every possibility by lack of evidence then that one may be or at least the closest to being right. i dont belive that evolution can ever be right unless they examine the supernatural and prove the supernatural is not needed. and while the evolution theory is just a theory, and fact as some of you say, should it be taught in school it is right, or the closest to right? no, ist not more right then anything else because they just dont allow anything else. sorry for going out of order, but if evolution wants to be correct they have to honestly disprove all other possibilities. and if you say they have already disproved the supernatural i must disagree and they have in this geology book. look at the statement above. people say that science is not about finding all the truth. i have to disagree. why else would we study unless we want to find answers?

The only thing required of scientist is objectivity.
Because Scientist are essentially "lone guns" in their fields admits heavy competition...that objectivity rarely exist but they are human like anyone else and humans aren't inclined to be objective.

 

[Skeptical]

I do not think the only thing a scientist needs is objectivity, though this is a vitally important quality.

It comes from initial talent, training and experience. It may not be a normal human attribute, but it is something that we can create, and keep to through personal discipline.

As far as creationists are concerned, there are a number of them who work as scientists, though in fields well clear of evolutionary biology. In these fields, they can be disciplined, objective, innovative, and excellent scientists.

There are also a few creationists who set out to become evolutionary biologists in order to attack evolution. These few may be sponsored by other creationists, and end up with Ph.D.s in biology. They then work for organisations opposed to evolution. However, they are not scientists, because their values and methods are totally unscientific.

 

[spidergoat]

Fraggle, science has already been used to study things like prayer, ghosts, telekinesis, telepathy, and precognition. You just need a good experiment.

 

[Skeptical]

Spider.
That is true. End result in each case is to say that the phenomena described are not detectable.

How does this relate to religion, since the topic is creationism, which is religious? Does science end up saying that the deity is also not detectable?

 

[spidergoat]

Not in each case. There is some evidence for precognition that is statistically significant.

ESP Study Gets Published in Scientific Journal

 

[Skeptical]

Spider

There have been literally thousands of scientific tests of various paranormal phenomena. Some have turned up with results that are positive and statistically significant, when seen on their own. When all the tests are combined, these anomalies disappear.

The problem is an artifact of statistics. Scientists usually work with 0.05 confidence limits. The following are averages - only attainable with numerous studies. This means that, if the studies are scientifically rigorous, then on average 18 out of 20 tests will give the 'correct' result. One in 20 will give the wrong result and one in 20 will give the wrong result in the opposite direction.

In the case you referenced, 18 out of 20 tests will give about 50 : 50 as expected due to chance. 1 in 20 will give more than 50%, as if ESP was operating, and 1 in 20 will give less than 50% as if ESP was causing people to get the wrong answer.

So, we can expect, out of thousands of tests, the occasional one which tends to suggest ESP 'works'. Another problem is that, when researchers get results due to chance alone, they tend not to publish the result. This means that the published tests are disproportionately skewed towards the false positives.

Only when scientists carry out a "meta-study" does this get compensated for. This happened, for example, with a paper published a couple years back in The Lancet on homeopathy. 110 studies were combined. The end result showed clearly that homeopathic treatments equal placebo.

 

[spidergoat]

It got published in a peer-reviewed journal, that makes it consistent with the scientific method.

 

[river-wind]

Science can and does address the issue of the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, full of creatures and other forces that capriciously interfere with the behavior of the natural universe. Specifically, when evidence for the existence of this supernatural universe (or any of its creatures or forces) is presented, scientists peer-review it to assess its validity.

To nit-pick: if such a thing were possible, then would the 'supernatural' universe still be supernatural, or would it now be a new natural universe with different rules than our own? Can science test/model the truly supernatural?

 

[spidergoat]

The supernatural would have to violate some natural law, which means that there would have to be a new science of the supernatural, in order to establish what the rules are.

 

[dbnp48]

To nit-pick: if such a thing were possible, then would the 'supernatural' universe still be supernatural, or would it now be a new natural universe with different rules than our own? Can science test/model the truly supernatural?

Lightening was originally thought off as divine intervention. Benjamin Franklin showed it was electricity and invented the lightening rod which showed it could be controlled to some extent. So, lightening moved from supernatural to natural. "Supernatural" is a code word for "we don't understand". I assume (just an assumption) that science could productively study anything even god if one exists.

 

[Skeptical]

Yes, but one thing science cannot study is that which is purely imaginary.

 

[Saquist]

I do not think the only thing a scientist needs is objectivity, though this is a vitally important quality.

It comes from initial talent, training and experience. It may not be a normal human attribute, but it is something that we can create, and keep to through personal discipline.

True

As far as creationists are concerned, there are a number of them who work as scientists, though in fields well clear of evolutionary biology. In these fields, they can be disciplined, objective, innovative, and excellent scientists.

There are also a few creationists who set out to become evolutionary biologists in order to attack evolution. These few may be sponsored by other creationists, and end up with Ph.D.s in biology. They then work for organisations opposed to evolution. However, they are not scientists, because their values and methods are totally unscientific.

Remember that's likely how Darwin and Lyle got started. An agenda. I'm not saying these scientist against evolution are any better than scientist against creation. It's merely the same failure of objectivity.

 

[Skeptical]

Saquist

A good scientist should not be against anything. A good scientist should be for the truth, and set out to discover it.

 

[river-wind]

Lightening was originally thought off as divine intervention. Benjamin Franklin showed it was electricity and invented the lightening rod which showed it could be controlled to some extent. So, lightening moved from supernatural to natural.

++

The supernatural would have to violate some natural law, which means that there would have to be a new science of the supernatural, in order to establish what the rules are.

So in this case, if the supernatural broke natural laws, we should be able to detect it, measure it. If the actions were taken by some consciousness which adhered to logic in some fashion, we should be able to identify a pattern and parse out note which natural phenomenon were the result of some undetectable force existing outside our natural world. Possibly even predict future actions if they were regular enough.

Would being able to model and predict the behavior of this being cause it to become part of our defined universe like lightening, and thus make it 'natural'?

What if the being did not use logic, or was completely random, such that no pattern was possible to discern?

 

[Saquist]

Saquist

A good scientist should not be against anything. A good scientist should be for the truth, and set out to discover it.

But how does a scientist determine truth from theory?

 

[spidergoat]

Scientists don't determine truth, they just build models.