January 25, 2011

Like I Said, THEY Make the Rules

The rules of the game

As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true.

‘Creationism isn’t science.’ 

‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.’ 

Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Read the rest of this article here.


RKBentley said...

You've struck upon something that is a pet peeve of mine. I don't object to the word "creationism" but evolutionists should at least use it correctly. Words that end in "ism" identify a philosophy or belief system. A belief in creation is creationism. On their website, Talk Origins asks some silly question like, "What is the evidence for creationism"? Do they really mean to ask for evidence that people believe in creation?

These people hate creation so much that they ONLY will refer to it as "creationism." They intentionally are trying to emphasize the belief aspect of it. They use the word even to the point of their own embarrassment.

Keep up the good word, brother.

God bless!!

Zach said...

Hi Stormbringer,

I haven't wandered to your website for quite a while. I hope you don't mind looking back a few days in your blog. I read Wieland's article linked from your site, and I agree in principle with Jones' criteria for science, although I feel like they could be better articulated.

However, I don't really see your objection - scientists (and I hope to include myself in this group) study things by using the scientific method - methodological naturalism and all that jazz. However, people tend to equate 'scientific' with 'correct'. I approach a question from a scientific perspective, someone else approaches the same question from a religious perspective. They aren't doing 'science' and I'm not doing 'religion' or 'philosophy' or whatever you want to call it. I don't see anything inherent in their approach that makes their method inferior to mine, or their answers less valid. I don't get bothered by the way people approach metaphysical questions - why does it bother you that scientists get to set parameters for the processes they use?

I may be rambling a bit, but do you understand what I'm getting at?

Anonymous said...

"I hope you don't mind looking back a few days in your blog."

Not in the least. I've had people get enthusiastic and go back several years, not just days.

"...why does it bother you that scientists get to set parameters for the processes they use?"

On the surface, it doesn't. When the limits are so sharply defined so that they automatically eliminate other possible explanations, then I think there is a problem. And this kind of thing happens when "science" ventures into metaphysics and still insists on being called "science".

There is a bit in a song by the Moody Blues from about forty years ago. In "How Is It We Are Here?", the writer referred to "scientist-priests". When science ventures into metaphysics, philosophy and religion, I think that term is pretty accurate.

Zach said...

What do you mean by 'metaphysics'? I took a terrible class freshman year on metaphysics, didn't like the subject at all.

Anyhoo, for what its worth, I can (at least sort of) appreciate your irritation when scientists say 'Creationism isn't correct'. What they should say is 'creationism, by our strict definitions of the scientific method, isn't scientific'. The second statement is absolutely true - the scientific method can't invoke supernatural explanations, therefore creationism is not scientific. The important point, though, is that 'scientific' and 'correct' are not at all synonymous. They can be, and I hope they usually are, but there's nothing inherent in 'doing science' that makes it hold some special truth above and beyond other methods of inquiry.

No major point here, I guess, mainly just a clarification of what you mean by metaphysics. Thanks.

Bob Sorensen said...

Here, my use of metaphysics is for things that are beyond the normal uses of science, things that can be measured and tested. Speculation about the origin of the universe, for instance, involves so much speculation, it becomes metaphysics.

For that matter, have you ever seen "Ghost Hunters"? Supernatural things like that are clearly metaphysics, but attempts are made to use scientific equipment to test and measure supernatural activity. Digital voice recorders that get sounds inaudible to the human ear, infrared video, electromagnetic gauges and other fun stuff that I would love to mess with are used. This kind of thing may blur the line between science and metaphysics, I think. Maybe.

Anonymous said...

Zach seems smart enough but some of your commetors are not. Maybe because they don't learn in college http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504744_162-20028739-10391703.html

Bob Sorensen said...

Oh yes! I've been saying for a long time that people do not know enough about critical thinking but insist that they are my intellectual superiors. That's probably part of Alex(andra)'s problem, a mere Xtian devastated a vitriolic atheist's poor attempts at logic. But never mind about that now.

Zach, if you read this far and you didn't see that article, a guy is fuming because I refused to defend a comment that I did not make, and failed my challenge to back up an assertion of his own.

Subscribe in a reader