The "Science" of Creationism and New Scientist Mag

[Hamulus]

Science does not ask rhetorical questions!

This is why creationism is not a science, because the fundamentalist Christian ignorance brigade already know the answers they want. I am SO sick of this intelligent design bullshit debate! I subscribe to New Scientist, and there has been articles about this nonsense for weeks now, and it shits me that I pay good money to hear about science, only to get pages of this rubbish and how the scientific community is "dealing with it."

This week there were a series of articles entitled "Mavericks; power of the lone voice" and on page 54, a creationist geologist demanding the scientific community accept his bullshit position. How they can include him in the same series of articles as actual scientific scientists is beyond me! He's not a "maverick" he's just a wanker!

Now to be fair, it seems he may have done some decent science on the way (computer modelling of tectonic plate movement or some such), but the reason he did it was that it was the first step on his quest to scientifically prove that Noah's flood actually happened! Apparently there are some geologists who are upset that he should be given prominent standing in the scientific community. Duh!

If his computer models are accurate and predictive then well done. We can accept them. But only after double the scrutiny of anyone else's work because we know where he's coming from and it's not to find THE truth, but HIS truth. That automatically should make any of his work suspect!

Then there was the "Scientists against God" article last week (I think), in which a bunch of scientists got together to try to plan how to do away with religion. While this one atleast made me smile, it's the same crap, just in reverse. Atheism should be just as abhorent to a scientist because it is a dogmatic view, and one dependent on what it is against - theism. Of course we all love Richard Dawkins (the world's favourite atheist) because he makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside when he smacks down another creationist in a televised debate, but he is hardly helping the situation... Shit! If I criticize Richard Dawkins, I may be forced to go to heaven when I die - to spend eternity with millions of smug Christians! Arrrgh! I take it all back! Richard, I love you!

[Pacifist]

New Scientist sucks, it is a trashy magazine that tries for sensationalist articles.


I remember a few months ago they had an article on an inter-stellar engine that generated thrust without any reactive force being exerted. It took even a layman to see that it was a a flawed design and yet they published it anyway.

Here's a good writup of the stupidity of the New Scientist writers here.
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/...scientist.html

[Goose1981]

Not many scientists take creationism seriously (Mr. Dawkins is one of the exceptions of course).

Its more of a hobby to have a giggle with when they need to relieve some of the stress of doing real science.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by Pacifist

New Scientist sucks, it is a trashy magazine that tries for sensationalist articles.

Nude Scientist is the mag for me! Hot chicks with glasses Did I type that, or think it ?!??!

[XandraX]

You don't think evolutionist scientists specifically set out to prove evolution? You're delusional.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by XandraX

You don't think evolutionist scientists specifically set out to prove evolution? You're delusional.

Your projecting your own limited perspective here. Not everybody approaches ideas and problems in your fashion.

[noboundaries-au]

Originally Posted by XandraX

You don't think evolutionist scientists specifically set out to prove evolution? You're delusional.

No they dont, they use what evidence they find and see if it works with the theory, nearly all the time it backs up evolution, occasionally it cant answer something at that point in time (and is answered further on), or occasionally something brings up new debate and changes (for example, the passing on of immunity from parents to children [as in non-genetic immunity] is somethign that has been discussed of late ).

Creationism uses hand-picked evidence to try and make itself sound correct (while discounting everything else against it). Thats why u never hear about their old flagship evidences anymore (land animal to whale transition species, flagellum, blood clotting, and so on), theyve all been figured out with further research.

[T-O-D]

Everyone comes at scientific research trying to prove something.

Some people try and prove aliens,
Some people try and prove God,
Some people try and prove evolution,
Some people try and prove creation,
Some people try and prove the big bang.

Each person who is doing research should be given equal merit in their research. If their findings are found to be true, then we have to accept them no matter what this persons religious beleifs (or lack thereof). If someone who is trying to prove evolution, made a statement and it was found to be true, then i would beleive it. Likewise, if someone who is trying to prove creation made a statement, and it was found to be true, then i would beleive that.

Science is about research and truth. The entire fact that people want to "double scrutinize" a creationists findings, proves that they are not interested in the science as much as where the person is coming from.

[Goose1981]

Originally Posted by T-O-D

The entire fact that people want to "double scrutinize" a creationists findings, proves that they are not interested in the science as much as where the person is coming from.

Doesnt matter who the research is done by.. the beauty of science is that it is held up to way more than "double scrutiny" from within its own ranks. Regardless of denomination. I would say that science is the pursuit of truth through logic.. instead of the ignorance of evidence to fit one specific "truth" (read: creationist cherry-picking).

I havent seen a creationist research paper yet that doesnt finish up by making a broad statement to the effect of "..so all this PROVES that our Creator did everything as put down in Genesis". If you do find one that doesnt.. let me know and chuck us a link. I would be very interested in reading it. Peer-reviewed would be nice too.. not just creationist-reviewed.

As for Creationist Geologists.. if you were one you would understand how bat-shit crazy they sound when they suggest the earth is of the order of thousands of years old.

[aXis]

Originally Posted by T-O-D

Some people try and prove the big bang.

I think it's a little different to that.

Scientists look at the facts and evidence around them, then try to come up with a hypothesis that explains it. Once the hypothesis has been through rigorous testing, it might then get called a theory. As time goes by, people will re-test the theory to see if it fits the data or predicts the right outcomes.

People arent trying to prove the big bang. They're trying to test an aspect of an established big bang theory - there's a big difference.

[Tragic_Calais]

Originally Posted by XandraX

You don't think evolutionist scientists specifically set out to prove evolution? You're delusional.

I think he is referring to initial idea's. Darwin didn't set out to create and prove evolution he wanted to explain all the varied species of animals he found, and evolution was the answer. Einstein didn't set out to find relativity he just wanted to explain the universe around him and relativity was the answer. The point he and I are trying to make is a scientist doesn't set out with a model, they start with a question then find out how to answer that question.

Further no scientist today sets out to prove evolution. Its already pretty solid, what they do its critique area's that may be incorrect or further area's where it may require more research. They also use the theory of evolution to explain the things we see in the wild

Originally Posted by T-O-D

Science is about research and truth. The entire fact that people want to "double scrutinize" a creationists findings, proves that they are not interested in the science as much as where the person is coming from.

I'd have to disagree, firstly all science is double scrutinized not just creationism, its part of the scientific method.

I also disagree with your equal merit comment, there is much pseudo science out there, creationism, mind control ect. Creationism has been proven wrong many times and is warping science to try and meet its goals. I agree people are welcome to continue to research it (its a free world) but each time its published scientists need to go and critique another incorrect theory which wastes time that could be put to real research and these papers are popping up everywhere.

Now I agree if creationism followed all the rules of the scientific method, showed why evolution is incorrect then showed how creationism can answer the questions then I would be more then happy for it to replace evolutionary theory. Im not going to hold my breath however

Originally Posted by pawnhead

A bit like the ever elusive 'perpetual motion machine'.

What do you mean elusive? I just bought mine off ebay

[noboundaries-au]

Originally Posted by aXis

People arent trying to prove the big bang. They're trying to test an aspect of an established big bang theory - there's a big difference.

Exactly... It was the evidence first and the theory second, there were plenty of theories before it (iirc like solid-state theory).

Someone didnt think hey this sounds like a good way to start history, lets find evidence to make it right.... they found the evidence and thought, shit our old theory is screwed now, hmmm what works with this theory *insert theorising and testing here*.... hmmm seems to work with all the evidence... lets call it something... how big bang theory sound... great ... The End

[Tragic_Calais]

Originally Posted by noboundaries-au

Exactly... It was the evidence first and the theory second, there were plenty of theories before it (iirc like solid-state theory).

Someone didnt think hey this sounds like a good way to start history, lets find evidence to make it right.... they found the evidence and thought, shit our old theory is screwed now, hmmm what works with this theory *insert theorising and testing here*.... hmmm seems to work with all the evidence... lets call it something... how big bang theory sound... great ... The End

Except for "the end"...

There is never an end

[noboundaries-au]

Originally Posted by Tragic_Calais

Except for "the end"...

There is never an end

Haha , true true, my post had to end though

[Xplora]

Originally Posted by Goose1981

Doesnt matter who the research is done by.. the beauty of science is that it is held up to way more than "double scrutiny" from within its own ranks. Regardless of denomination. I would say that science is the pursuit of truth through logic.. instead of the ignorance of evidence to fit one specific "truth" (read: creationist cherry-picking).

The sociology of science is a most well investigated field, and the presumptions you are laying out in your post are noble goals of science, NOT noble realities of science. As much as things like mathematics are fairly cut and dried, simple to assess propositions, the real growth areas are things like psychology where the foundations are still being worked on, and there is a lot of politics and suchforth amongst the powers that be.

This doesn't even vaguely deal with the challenge of creationism, this is a reality of Science today. Without dealing quite heavily in creationism, you will not be able to make fair calls. There are many wise, intelligent scientists who don't ascribe to creationism, and many wise, intelligent scientists that do.

The main issue is seen in comments from someone on the street, who when asked if they believe in God reply "Didn't science prove that was all rubbish years ago?". Science is replacing religion for many people and this is a religion all of its own... and any victory by a "creationist" is seen as a threat to that.