Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Jose Fly]

Then you'll continue to be wrong won't you.

Wow....you honestly think you are more of an authority on science than the AAAS, the NAS, universities, and pretty much every science organization that's existed.

Okay then.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #41]

What would the earth look like if it actually had been created 6,000 years by a god say, but with all the details carefully setup to make it look much much older?

Probably just like we see it today, but how can you possibly postulate that a god being did such a thing, or would?

Like this "lets assume the earth was created 6,000 years ago with an apparent great age, is there any way we could tell?".

It is a meaningless hypothesis as far as science is concerned, and given that no gods of any kind have ever been demonstrated to exist it is also a highly unlikely explanation.

That's purely a matter of opinion though.

There's no basis for believing such a far fetched explanation for which there is no evidence.

I never said I believed it though, go and check the post history.

On the other hand, the current geological explanation is based on a vast amount of physical evidence that is consistent, and does not require venturing into supernatural speculation.

I never said the view that the earth is old was inconsistent with anything, go and check the post history.

The argument that this can't be true because its silly for God to fool us is also useless, there might be no "fooling" going on at all, it might in fact be setup to make us think, think about why we believe what we believe.

Or it might just be a silly idea with no basis to believe it has any relevance to the real world.

Yes it might be but face facts you cannot scientifically prove the claim is false, it could be true and you'd have been fooled, science cannot help you decide you can only choose, you have to choose, let go of the comfort blanket that you call "science", welcome to reality...

If you're going to claim that a god might have undertaken the effort to make a young earth look old, with all of the details and changes needed to actually do that, you need a better hypothesis than that it might have been done to make us think about why we believe what we believe. It might have been done to fool us just as well ... but both are equally unlikely to be correct.

Nope, false, wrong again - you cannot determine "likely" either, no way, no basis for assigning a probability here.

You misunderstood me, science can and does show the earth to be very very old but only if we begin with a particular set of untestable assumptions, if we choose some other set of assumptions then science shows something else.

What "untestable assumptions" are you referring to? No untestable assumptions are required to determine that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, by nearly 6 orders of magnitude. What are these untestable assumptions?

The assumption that things that look old really are old, the assumption that the only way for the geological formations we see to exist is for great lengths of time to elapse, the assumption that rates of radioactive decay we see today were not much higher in the past all this and more has to be assumed, it is stunning that you don't know this, this is what a good science education would have taught you, the fact that this basic stuff is a shock to you just goes to show how poor is science education.

Time and time again here - I blame science education - I encounter people who have no idea that science is nothing to do with truth, this is a fundamental aspect of science yet it seems nobody in the US has ever had this explained to them.

Science has nothing to do with truth?

Exactly, it is not what you think, you've been misled, seriously this is basic "foundations of scientific thought" material, you should have been taught it - why weren't you?

Science attempts to understand the natural world and provide explanations for how things work. If these explanations are never disseminated for everyone to challenge then you never get the iterative process needed to arrive at the "best" explanation, which is the goal. "Truth" is always the goal if truth is defined as "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Science is many things but truth is not one of them. Models are not truth, theories are not truth.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then you'll continue to be wrong won't you.

Wow....you honestly think you are more of an authority on science than the AAAS, the NAS, universities, and pretty much every science organization that's existed.

Okay then.

Well I know what the established definition of science is, I know that science is not truth, I know that all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions, this is not a bad start, quite a few here who take it upon themselves to tell me "but that's not how science works" and other such vacuities do not even know these basics, why?

[Jose Fly]

Well I know what the established definition of science is

The record shows otherwise. You believe (mistakenly) that methodological naturalism is a concept that was only recently and unilaterally forced onto scientists by the AAAS in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists".

I know that science is not truth, I know that all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions, this is not a bad start, quite a few here who take it upon themselves to tell me "but that's not how science works" and other such vacuities do not even know these basics, why?

See above.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well I know what the established definition of science is

The record shows otherwise. You believe (mistakenly) that methodological naturalism is a concept that was only recently and unilaterally forced onto scientists by the AAAS in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists".

Again you haven't quoted me saying that despite me asking you several times, do you now how to use the forums quote feature? There's no evidence at all that I ever said any such thing, do you know what evidence is? what data is?

It is your own belief that's mistaken there, we could clear this up by you making the effort to accurately quote me when we debate then I could show where you've misunderstood, but you won't do that, one can only speculate as to why.

I know that science is not truth, I know that all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions, this is not a bad start, quite a few here who take it upon themselves to tell me "but that's not how science works" and other such vacuities do not even know these basics, why?

See above.

Why are you so afraid to quote me?

[Miles]

Then you'll continue to be wrong won't you.

Wow....you honestly think you are more of an authority on science than the AAAS, the NAS, universities, and pretty much every science organization that's existed.

Okay then.

Well I know what the established definition of science is, I know that science is not truth,

Good, because it isn't. As everyone should be aware, in main, science consists of objective observation, experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses, inductive reasoning, repetition, critical analysis, and verification and testing.

I know that all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions,

Then your knowledge needs a huge overhauling.

this is not a bad start, quite a few here who take it upon themselves to tell me "but that's not how science works" and other such vacuities do not even know these basics,

Actually, I suspect you're pulling our leg here. Am I right or am I right? Of course I am because nobody . . . . . . . .


.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then you'll continue to be wrong won't you.

Wow....you honestly think you are more of an authority on science than the AAAS, the NAS, universities, and pretty much every science organization that's existed.

Okay then.

Well I know what the established definition of science is, I know that science is not truth,

Good, because it isn't. As everyone should be aware, in main, science consists of objective observation, experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses, inductive reasoning, repetition, critical analysis, and verification and testing.

I know that all scientific claims are based on untestable assumptions,

Then your knowledge needs a huge overhauling.

I'm too good for this place, just too darn good.

[Jose Fly]

You believe (mistakenly) that methodological naturalism is a concept that was only recently and unilaterally forced onto scientists by the AAAS in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists".

Again you haven't quoted me saying that despite me asking you several times, do you now how to use the forums quote feature? There's no evidence at all that I ever said any such thing, do you know what evidence is? what data is?

Here's the statement in question: You believe (mistakenly) that methodological naturalism is a concept that was only recently and unilaterally forced onto scientists by the AAAS in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists".

Since I posted the AAAS statement in which they define science as seeking “natural explanations” (methodological naturalism) you have:

• Claimed it was a recent development from the AAAS: “the actual argument I made…is that the AAAS insertion of "seeking natural explanations" has no historic precedent, and I am correct”. Post #34
  
  Claimed the AAAS did this to appease fanatical evolutionists: “This is why there's no need for this rather silly and seemingly desperate phrase "seeking natural explanations" it adds nothing of value, masks the true philosophical nature of all science and has only one purpose - appease the fanatical evolutionists”. Post #36
  
  Claimed the AAAS forced it onto scientists in order to redefine atheism: “this is a sneaky tactic akin to the attempt to redefine "atheism", and this is the AAAS, it is frankly absurd and yet another example of how this insanity is unfolding and doing true intellectual damage. What this amounts to is a restriction on the kinds of reasoning and conclusions and inferences one is allowed to make (by the thought police).” Post #14

Why are you so afraid to quote me?

Grow up....please.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #52]

...it is stunning that you don't know this, this is what a good science education would have taught you, the fact that this basic stuff is a shock to you just goes to show how poor is science education.

More of the juvenile, insulting ad hominems that you constantly complain about others doing. What's stunning is that you continue to do exactly what you criticize everyone else of and don't seem to realize it (or you do and it is very much intentional, which I suspect is the case). It isn't a "shock" to me (yet another of your never-ending stream of thinly veiled insults) how science works ... I've actually been practicing it for over 35 years now and still make my living that way. A "good science education" was the start of that and you're in no position to comment on what I was taught, or wasn't.

If someone disagrees with you there's no need to constantly whine and hurl insults. It is getting old.

[brunumb]

The problem also is that there is no incompatibility between science and claims of age, science cannot be used to prove the age of the earth is > 6,000 years. I myself do not adopt that view but it is an entirely rational view. There is absolutely no way we can show that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great age.

If one is going to invoke magic, then it is true that nothing can be done to definitively demonstrate that the magical proposition is not true. But we can go a long way towards doing that by providing evidence showing that the earth is very much older than 6000 years.

You really have to wonder why a deity would go about creating a planet (all planets?) with an inbuilt appearance of great age. The questions just start to pile up until the only option is to sweep them all under the carpet by proclaiming the unsupported assertion that "God works in mysterious ways".