Topic: Definition of a research design
June 26, 2019 / By Hopkin Question:
Creationists misappropriate scientific terms and concepts (e.g. ‘proof’ and ‘theory’), redefine them so that they are no longer ‘scientific’, and then use the corrupted definitions to ‘prove’ the ‘scientific’ truth of their faith-based beliefs.
If they really are as secure in their faith as they claim – why do they lie and cheat trying to justify it?
And don’t any of you anti-evolutionist types claim that you know more about the scientific method than I do unless you have a graduate degree in a science (or science related) discipline (from a real university) and have published in major peer reviewed scientific journals.
I’ll open with a couple of my own: ‘Global Change Biology’ and the ‘ International Journal of Climatology’.
Duh…. It is effecting the quality of life and future of all Americans. We in the US are already the most scientifically illiterate people among the developed nations. This wave of superiority we are riding has crested, we just have not crashed yet.
It matters that Osama Bin-Laden is smarter than Bush and that his followers value education more than the typical American.
If you want religion taught equally in our schools with science, would you accept having the scientific theory of evolution taught equally in all of America’s churches every week?
Equal time is equal time, right?
Jeff C -----
You skipped every one of those science and math classes, didn’t you?
Creationists have no idea how much material is required to produce fossil fuels. Plants have less than 20% carbon compared to coals 90%. Even if the process was 100% efficient, the earth would have to be several times larger than it is to produce sufficient vegetative material.
Think about it. Coal and oil are so economically important that a enormous amount of research has been done to learn as much.
‘Most’ scientists do not agree with you.
Yeah, the ostrich remark cracked me up. Not only are they the ones hiding from reality, they want to whack-off those heads that are not buried in the sand.
Edit to creationists --
Do you pay attention to anything?
You CANNOT use ‘theory’ as science uses ‘scientific theory’. Gravity is a scientific theory, as is electricity, Atomic theory, and Evolution. In fact, evolution is the most powerful general explanatory theory in all of science. It is the biological science equivalent of the unified theory sought by physicists in their research.
Creationism is a ‘theory’ in the sense that you can call any goofy idea or notion a ‘theory’.
I have a ‘theory’ that George Bush is Osama Bin-Laden’s love slave. And, I have ‘proof’- Bush is losing the war on terror to make his lover happy.
Even a complete idiot would occasionally stumble into a correct decision, but Bush’s buffoonery defies the law of large numbers (and a ‘law’ is bigger than a ’theory’ in everyone’s dictionary), statistical probability, and random chance – and, it makes more sense than creation theory.
kenny p ----
What creationists ‘say’ are lies. That is the word that most accurately, and truthfully, describes the Creationist argument.
And worse even is the hypocrisy about who wants to silence honest scientific investigation.
Science has never tried to investigate super- and extra-natural religious belief because it is outside of science’s domain. We know we cannot address or answer those issues and, therefore, we do not attempt it.
Conservative Christians, on the other hand, want to dominate and control scientific knowledge for the expressed purpose of silencing those it feels threatened by.
The whole point of my question centers on the fact that since Creationists have no scientific evidence (and they know that they have no scientific basis for their claims), they redefine and corrupt the true nature of science, and then proceed to invent and make-up pseudo scientific evidence that they claim is ‘real’ science.
That is intellectually, morally, ethically, and behaviorally dishonest. And the real ‘proof’ of that can be found in many of the answers to my question. Even I was amazed at the speed with which defenders of creation pseudo-science drove right over facts and the truth on their way to stating their false claims.
Empirical reality (scientific truth) is totally and completely irrelevant as far as you are concerned, isn’t it? You simply discount it because of your certainty in your mystical mythological truth. If you do not wish to live in the reality-based world, that is certainly your choice. Just don’t try to force everyone else to live in your imaginary world.
No, maildad, that IS NOT how it is.
Let me tell you how IT IS.
Only conservative Christians claim to possess such knowledge. Scientists have never claimed to be there at the beginning, do not claim to know what happened, and there is no scientific theory explaining what happened.
How can you say each group has a theory when there is no scientific theory in effect (and Creationists have no scientific theories, at all)?
Let me explain that also. Creationist made it up and attributed it science, falsely stating (lying) that science was making claims it never made. The physics of our universe are known only back to the moment just AFTER the Big Bang. Now, there may be, and are, ‘hypotheses’ concerning time prior, but there are no ‘scientific theories’. Similarly, the scientific theory of evolution does not address the issue of the creation of life (did you know that?).
How can creationists claim to be informed when they do not even know what science has put on the table? The answer is that they do not want to be informed and they make no effort to inform themselves. All the little worker-bee creationists just regurgitate the lies spun by the big lying Queen-bee creationists.
Most creationists have little or no scientific education, are intellectually lazy, and are afraid to face the real world. Instead they cling to the mystical beliefs and mythological figures of quasi-historic Semitic tribes of semi-nomadic goat-herders who lived over 2000 years ago.
The rest of us are supposed to accept scientific explanations from people who not only lacked both electricity and indoor plumbing, but thought the world was flat, and whose knowledge of medicine and the natural world was no better than anyone else living in the same pre-Copernican, pre-Newtonian, pre-Darwinian, and pre-Industrial era.
No only would the journals fight over it, but most graduate students would drive over people to get it published since anyone who could unseat evolution would almost certainly be the most renowned scientist in all of history.
There can be wisdom (judgment – understanding) without knowledge. You skipped the critical step in the process. Therefore, your wisdom is a phony as your science, and your opinion has no worth.
I of course meant 'no wisdom' in the above.
No, guessing is not all we can do. The epistemology of human knowledge, the philosophy of science, and the incredible success of the practical application of the scientific method all establish the reality of human knowledge (as distinguished from belief).
If people really think that all knowledge is guesswork or matters of opinion, it is no wonder that so many of them are fearful and seek shelter in simplistic well-defined belief systems.
Have you no shame?
Are you serious? If one of us needs to go back to school - it’s not me.
Doesn’t it embarrass you to act like you know a lot about something when we all know that you don’t know anything about it?
don't panic –
I won’t panic as long as cats like you are around. You probably have smart friends – and even they think you are smart, huh?
I think the same thing, that their belief system is so tightly bound together (so that, if Bush is wrong then the entire conservative philosophy is wrong, America is wrong, and god does not exist) that if they are wrong about any one thing, even the most trivial, then everything they think and believe in is wrong.
On the other hand, fear that they would be wrong about everything they believe in may the closest any of them ever come to being right about something.
Elwood | 2 days ago
I think that it's obvious why they lie about it so much - the creationist position is false, and science has effectively refuted it.
At the same time, the lies work very well, largely because people in general don't know much about science, and aren't very good at thinking about things. There are also some widespread misconceptions that make scientific notions of the origin of species very hard to understand. The biggest examples of this are probably
1 - We shouldn't believe anything unless we've proven it beyond any doubt. Before that point, it's "just a theory", and anything unproven is no better than anything else unproven.
2 - Organisms comes in neat little categories called "species", and everything within a species is identical (yeah, I know, that's freakin' nuts, but you can see it in every creationist who spouts the "microevolution/macroevolution" nonsense).
3 - Only intentional design processes can produce things over a certain threshold of complexity.
4 - If it doesn't look random to us, it's not random. This one you can easily illustrate. Ask people this: if you had a bunch of alphabet blocks and you threw them up into the air, which of the following orders would they be more likely to land in?
A - I n t e l l i g e n t D e s i g n
B - n i l s D n g e e i t g n e I t
The correct answer is that both are equally likely, but almost everyone will say that the second one is more likely, and look at you like you're nuts when you say they're equally likely. This misconception about probability underlies success the "mutations can't add information to the genes" nonsense that so many creationists find convincing.
It is pretty telling that the creationists are so fervently trying to censor science, to keep evolution from being taught. You don't see scientists trying to keep churches from teaching creationism, or insisting that churches "teach the controversy". Why do you suppose that is? Pretty obviously it's because scientists are willing to let both sides be taught and let people decide for themselves, while the creationists are scared to death that if we allow people to decide for themselves, people will chose science over religion.
It's simply a lie to claim that the creationist attacks on science education are an attempt to make sure both sides are represented, and the people here telling that lie should be ashamed of their transparently dishonest behavior. Creationist attempts to have creationism put into science classes are pure censorship. You people don't want us teaching science, and you're intent on keeping us from doing so, and you don't have the moral character to even admit it. Utterly shameful.
With all due respect, there's much that science has not been able to prove, or even provide evidence for.
Perhaps there was some evolution. Perhaps the Earth is older than many Christians think. But do those things really matter?
All we can do is guess. And although the Bible isn't scientifically sound in some areas, in many other areas it is. AND all of the prophecies in the Bible, apart from those in Revelations, have been fulfilled. NO other book can claim that.
My belief is strong enough that even if evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will still believe. Ostrich syndrome? Perhaps. I guess I won't find out until I die if I was wrong, though.
But why do you feel it's necessary to attack people for what they believe? Are you so insecure in YOUR beliefs that you have to try to convert a Christian to atheism? Christians try to convert people because we were TOLD by Jesus Christ to spread the gospel. Did Darwin ever say that atheists were supposed to try to convert everyone? No? Alright then.
And there are plenty of Christians who have a graduate degree in science. Want a list? You may skip over the introduction and disclaimer. The point is the list.
I'm not one of them, and I won't pretend to be. I also try not to use the "evolution is just a theory" defense simply because many things are only "theories" but they're still true.
I have many reasons to believe as I do. If you ever decide you want to know why, feel free to contact me. I won't try to convert you. I've had a lot of correspondence with atheists, and I respect their beliefs even if they don't respect mine. I can't PROVE that there's a God. However, I can show that there's a very real possibility that there is one. I've read a lot of books on the subject, and I also have a list of websites that help provide evidence.
The answer isn't really complicated. Lets look at the pyramids. Solid built structures. Took a lot of thought and effort to build.
Lets look at a persons feelings of security. People are vulnerable when their born. Parents give them a sense of security. When they grow older they have doubts about their abilities. Whether they are ready or not, they reach the age where they have to take the training wheels off and live. People are insecure and go to work building their sense of security again. Some start with physical strength others begin with financial strength, but in order to really establish security you have to remove doubt. Religion is the duct tape that does that. They convince themselves that there is a plan in place and everything that happens in life too them is part of that plan. I call that autopilot. When ever they can't explain something they bring the magic phrases into line. "God has a plan." "God moves in mysterious ways." You get the picture.
Now if you build a pyramid and the base isn't very strong. You get a tumbled mess. If every strand of their personal security is built upon the basis of their religion, then if another equally footed security measure such as science starts telling people that there isn't a god and that the base of their pyramid is jello, then they start fighting back. They must maintain their belief system for their life to have meaning. Since religion is a twisted mass of interpretive messages it isn't a stretch to realize that they will reinvent the language of science to defend and promote themselves. A belief is strongest when all believe it and none are there to nay say it. Religion is a world conquering campaign.
There are a few that have legitimate graduate degrees. There are even a few with published papers from a ways back. But they are rare. Most of them are like Dr Dino (Ken Hovind) who is currently in jail for tax fraud and bought his degree.
There are no papers that appear in any scientific journal because it is horrible science. The real funny thing is hearing them complain that it is some type of scientific conspiracy. I guess they don't realize that if there really were any Earth shattering evidence, the journals would fight over the right to publish it, and the guy that found it would win the Nobel prize.
Dear Kenny P,
I just gave you a thumbs down because I disagree so thoroughly with your answer. Interpret it as my 'fear' if you wish, my actual opinion and experience seems to matter little with your lot. That doesn't mean you have any clue what I think. Maybe you should consider what we say instead of telling us what me feel. You might learn something.
Several excellent answers to this question have been given already. Why not start there?