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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is precisely what I already said, the argument that the earth is ancient logically follows if we assume certain things. If we assume other things then we can conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old.

So no nobody has said the dating methods are wrong, what we can say is that at what point these began might be wrong.

Laws allow us to predict the future and test those predictions, but it is an assumption that we can confidently determine the past state from the current state because this cannot be tested.

That assumption is called uniformitarianism and it is an assumption, quite reasonable but totally assumed.

If we choose to NOT assume uniformitarianism then we can say that around 6,000 years ago the earth was created by God and the laws of nature were created by God, they did not exist until this time. The laws allow the future state to follow the current state and follow nice smooth mathemitcal rules. So from the instant the earth was created the laws began to operate but to assume they always operated that way and the the earth is very very old is wrong.

1.
Sir all those methods of dating support each other.
We have both biological processes, geological processes, magnetic processes and radioactive decay processes.
We have accumulation of tree rings(biological systems), accumulation of lead in zircon deposits through uranium radioactive decay/ accumulation of argon in rock minerals through potassium radioactive decay/accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during the spontaneous fission of uranium-238/ accumulation of electrons and holes in the crystal lattice of certain minerals as a result of exposure to radiation emitted from radioactive isotopes in the sample and its surroundings, accumulation of trapped electrons in defects or holes in the crystal lattice of the quartz sand grain, accumulation of change in the direction of the remanent magnetization of the rocks caused by reversals in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field, accumulation of layers of tephra/geologic timekeepers like rock formations(mountain building, erosion and plate tectonics ) with annual layers and provide us a mean to reliable clocks=geologic rates/ annual ice layerings provides us with another clock.
Q: Are you telling me that the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the accumulation of all the above coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young? Really?
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Only the ignorant simpleton maybe.

2.
From our current measurements of the top and Higgs masses, it seems that our Universe is metastable.
These laws are always Immutable and valid in all tested situations.
This is also supported by deep theoretical, mathematical arguments like in case of the energy and momentum conservation based on the Noether’s Theorem.
In a study some scientists showed the laws of nature did not changed over a period of 14 year using atomic clocks. They concluded the laws of physics certainly did not change over fourteen-year period in our solar system.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... er-change/
When we observe the universe(light from close and distant objects)it looks consistent everywhere and across the 13.8 billion years.

3.
If we posit an accelerated decay there is a problem. We have to 4 billions of radioactive and heat decay happening in very short period of time which would heat the Earth and vaporize all the rocks and crust of the planet.

Off course a huge number scientists from geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology and most historian scholars-new testament scholars who devoted all their lives to study, who most likely are/were more intelligent then you, are/were all wrong on so many subjects is baffling and you, a mere average human being, are right.

Q: How likely is that that belief which contradicts so many fields of study while considering we have functioning satellites, GPS, phones, PCs, internet, TVs, all kinds of transportations systems, vaccines, antibiotics, all kind of medicines, home heating systems, Electric Light, air conditioning, fridges, self driving cars all because of the above people from all those fields?

Textual example of dunning-kruger effect.

Young Earth belief like Flat Earth belief is just ridiculous.

Sorry, I can't address such pleonastic posts.

[alexxcJRO]

This is precisely what I already said, the argument that the earth is ancient logically follows if we assume certain things. If we assume other things then we can conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old.

So no nobody has said the dating methods are wrong, what we can say is that at what point these began might be wrong.

Laws allow us to predict the future and test those predictions, but it is an assumption that we can confidently determine the past state from the current state because this cannot be tested.

That assumption is called uniformitarianism and it is an assumption, quite reasonable but totally assumed.

If we choose to NOT assume uniformitarianism then we can say that around 6,000 years ago the earth was created by God and the laws of nature were created by God, they did not exist until this time. The laws allow the future state to follow the current state and follow nice smooth mathemitcal rules. So from the instant the earth was created the laws began to operate but to assume they always operated that way and the the earth is very very old is wrong.

1.
Sir all those methods of dating support each other.
We have both biological processes, geological processes, magnetic processes and radioactive decay processes.
We have accumulation of tree rings(biological systems), accumulation of lead in zircon deposits through uranium radioactive decay/ accumulation of argon in rock minerals through potassium radioactive decay/accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during the spontaneous fission of uranium-238/ accumulation of electrons and holes in the crystal lattice of certain minerals as a result of exposure to radiation emitted from radioactive isotopes in the sample and its surroundings, accumulation of trapped electrons in defects or holes in the crystal lattice of the quartz sand grain, accumulation of change in the direction of the remanent magnetization of the rocks caused by reversals in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field, accumulation of layers of tephra/geologic timekeepers like rock formations(mountain building, erosion and plate tectonics ) with annual layers and provide us a mean to reliable clocks=geologic rates/ annual ice layerings provides us with another clock.
Q: Are you telling me that the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the accumulation of all the above coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young? Really?
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Only the ignorant simpleton maybe.

2.
From our current measurements of the top and Higgs masses, it seems that our Universe is metastable.
These laws are always Immutable and valid in all tested situations.
This is also supported by deep theoretical, mathematical arguments like in case of the energy and momentum conservation based on the Noether’s Theorem.
In a study some scientists showed the laws of nature did not changed over a period of 14 year using atomic clocks. They concluded the laws of physics certainly did not change over fourteen-year period in our solar system.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... er-change/
When we observe the universe(light from close and distant objects)it looks consistent everywhere and across the 13.8 billion years.

3.
If we posit an accelerated decay there is a problem. We have to 4 billions of radioactive and heat decay happening in very short period of time which would heat the Earth and vaporize all the rocks and crust of the planet.

Off course a huge number scientists from geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology and most historian scholars-new testament scholars who devoted all their lives to study, who most likely are/were more intelligent then you, are/were all wrong on so many subjects is baffling and you, a mere average human being, are right.

Q: How likely is that that belief which contradicts so many fields of study while considering we have functioning satellites, GPS, phones, PCs, internet, TVs, all kinds of transportations systems, vaccines, antibiotics, all kind of medicines, home heating systems, Electric Light, air conditioning, fridges, self driving cars all because of the above people from all those fields?

Textual example of dunning-kruger effect.

Young Earth belief like Flat Earth belief is just ridiculous.

Sorry, I can't address such pleonastic posts.

More wining. More excuses. More avoidance.
Q: Why come here to debate if its too hard for you? Go play with toys.

[Jose Fly]

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

No it has not Jose, you are quite wrong.

Then provide an example of science being conducted under a different method.

First the term "methodological naturalism" did not exist, was not used anywhere in any branch of science before 1982, go and check for yourself.

Second the definition of the term must rest with he who made it up, so please share his definition then perhaps I can address your question.

What constitutes "the history of science"? Unless you can clearly define that I don't see how your claim can be verified.

Let's say in the last 250 years. Do you have an example of science being conducted under a different method than methodological naturalism?

See above - what is the definition you are using?

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

Pardon? what does that even mean? how can I verify this claim???

?????? We've been discussing methodological naturalism and non-natural explanations for things most of this thread, and you don't even know what "non-natural mechanisms" refers to? Then what the heck is your point here?

My point is you wrote "No one has proposed" but that seems untestable, how can make this claim, how did you search to see if it is true, where did you search? what did you search?

If you meant to write "I am not aware of.." please say so, as originally worded it is a general absolute claim about something not existing which you cannot support.

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

You need to broaden your horizons Jose, if you are insisting empiricism is true just say so (of course if you do you won't be able to prove it, but proving claims never seemed to matter much when its evolutionists making them).

You're not even making sense.

I took your sentence to mean "There is no means by which non-natural things can be investigated" which (if that is what you meant) to adopt empiricism. Because if you are an empiricist then of course no answer I give will suffice, that is what I meant.

Wrong again, you see (and you can quote me, just quote me to prove me a liar!) I never ever ever wrote "I want science to consider <anything>" I never ever ever wrote that

Then what exactly is your point here? Do you want something to change? If so, what?

The point is that the established definition of science throughout the centuries has never contained the clause "seeking natural explanations" and the AAAS addition is a politically motivated insertion.

So why not try hard to remember what I did say which is "the clause 'seeking natural explanations' has never been part of the definition of 'science""

It has been added by the AAAS (that same august body that did so much for eugenics in the 1920s!) , for political reasons, you now claim that "science" has always followed "methodological naturalism" yet that term too was made up in 1982!

Except as I showed before, you're wrong. That definition most certainly isn't limited to the AAAS.

Well since I found more definitions that do not contain it than you found definitions that do contain it, I rest my case.

I now see everything you wrote above to be irrelevant.

But you seem to be trying to play both sides of the fence here. On one hand you complain about science being defined as only including natural causes, but OTOH you say you're not advocating for science to include non-natural causes. If the latter is true, then why does the former bother you at all?

I'm not advocating what others should do, that is their business, but I do not approve of some body like the AAAS basically creating a basis to label something as "pseudoscience" simply because it does not conform to atheistic norms.

That's it? Pages and pages of back and forth, with all sorts of red herrings, and your only point is that you don't approve of how the AAAS defined science and referred to ID creationism as "pseudoscience", because you believe they did so as part of some larger atheistic agenda?

FYI, do you know what the reaction from the staff and members of the AAAS is likely to be upon finding out "Sherlock Holmes at debatingchristianity.com doesn't approve of your definition of science"? I'll give you a hint....it'd fall under the category of "So what?"

But then given some of your other views on science, such as believing that AiG's mandate that all their employees automatically reject any data that conflicts with their religion is just fine in science, that you "don't approve" of what the AAAS has done is hardly surprising. In fact, I'd say it's to be expected.

So is that really it? The main point of this thread is you seeing what AAAS has done and saying "I don't approve"? Anything else?

[Jose Fly]

This is what I've been saying, the age of the earth does depend on the epistemological foundations one chooses.

<bolding mine>

Does this statement hold equally true for all facts, just that particular one, or is it restricted to a particular class of facts?

If all facts, then we have no science. Gravity is as strong as anyone needs or wants it to be for them at the time.

If just the one fact, what singles it out as unique?

And if restricted to a class of facts, what are the defining characteristics of such a class?

It's nothing more than solipsism. We can't really know anything because maybe....just maybe...the gods are magically deceiving us in ways that are impossible for us to detect.

I'm always amazed at how quick creationists are to invoke this.

[Sherlock Holmes]

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

No it has not Jose, you are quite wrong.

Then provide an example of science being conducted under a different method.

First the term "methodological naturalism" did not exist, was not used anywhere in any branch of science before 1982, go and check for yourself.

Second the definition of the term must rest with he who made it up, so please share his definition then perhaps I can address your question.

What constitutes "the history of science"? Unless you can clearly define that I don't see how your claim can be verified.

Let's say in the last 250 years. Do you have an example of science being conducted under a different method than methodological naturalism?

See above - what is the definition you are using?

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

Pardon? what does that even mean? how can I verify this claim???

?????? We've been discussing methodological naturalism and non-natural explanations for things most of this thread, and you don't even know what "non-natural mechanisms" refers to? Then what the heck is your point here?

My point is you wrote "No one has proposed" but that seems untestable, how can make this claim, how did you search to see if it is true, where did you search? what did you search?

If you meant to write "I am not aware of.." please say so, as originally worded it is a general absolute claim about something not existing which you cannot support.

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

You need to broaden your horizons Jose, if you are insisting empiricism is true just say so (of course if you do you won't be able to prove it, but proving claims never seemed to matter much when its evolutionists making them).

You're not even making sense.

I took your sentence to mean "There is no means by which non-natural things can be investigated" which (if that is what you meant) to adopt empiricism. Because if you are an empiricist then of course no answer I give will suffice, that is what I meant.

Wrong again, you see (and you can quote me, just quote me to prove me a liar!) I never ever ever wrote "I want science to consider <anything>" I never ever ever wrote that

Then what exactly is your point here? Do you want something to change? If so, what?

The point is that the established definition of science throughout the centuries has never contained the clause "seeking natural explanations" and the AAAS addition is a politically motivated insertion.

So why not try hard to remember what I did say which is "the clause 'seeking natural explanations' has never been part of the definition of 'science""

It has been added by the AAAS (that same august body that did so much for eugenics in the 1920s!) , for political reasons, you now claim that "science" has always followed "methodological naturalism" yet that term too was made up in 1982!

Except as I showed before, you're wrong. That definition most certainly isn't limited to the AAAS.

Well since I found more definitions that do not contain it than you found definitions that do contain it, I rest my case.

I now see everything you wrote above to be irrelevant.

But you seem to be trying to play both sides of the fence here. On one hand you complain about science being defined as only including natural causes, but OTOH you say you're not advocating for science to include non-natural causes. If the latter is true, then why does the former bother you at all?

I'm not advocating what others should do, that is their business, but I do not approve of some body like the AAAS basically creating a basis to label something as "pseudoscience" simply because it does not conform to atheistic norms.

That's it? Pages and pages of back and forth, with all sorts of red herrings, and your only point is that you don't approve of how the AAAS defined science and referred to ID creationism as "pseudoscience", because you believe they did so as part of some larger atheistic agenda?

FYI, do you know what the reaction from the staff and members of the AAAS is likely to be upon finding out "Sherlock Holmes at debatingchristianity.com doesn't approve of your definition of science"? I'll give you a hint....it'd fall under the category of "So what?"

But then given some of your other views on science, such as believing that AiG's mandate that all their employees automatically reject any data that conflicts with their religion is just fine in science, that you "don't approve" of what the AAAS has done is hardly surprising. In fact, I'd say it's to be expected.

So is that really it? The main point of this thread is you seeing what AAAS has done and saying "I don't approve"? Anything else?

No that was never the point of thread, the OP makes no mention of the AAAS, that's something you brought up by sharing an open letter from the AAAS and I later challenged something I read in their letter.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is what I've been saying, the age of the earth does depend on the epistemological foundations one chooses.

<bolding mine>

Does this statement hold equally true for all facts, just that particular one, or is it restricted to a particular class of facts?

If all facts, then we have no science. Gravity is as strong as anyone needs or wants it to be for them at the time.

If just the one fact, what singles it out as unique?

And if restricted to a class of facts, what are the defining characteristics of such a class?

It's nothing more than solipsism. We can't really know anything because maybe....just maybe...the gods are magically deceiving us in ways that are impossible for us to detect.

I'm always amazed at how quick creationists are to invoke this.

Are you disputing what I said, which was "...the age of the earth does depend on the epistemological foundations one chooses"?

[Difflugia]

It's nothing more than solipsism. We can't really know anything because maybe....just maybe...the gods are magically deceiving us in ways that are impossible for us to detect.

I'm always amazed at how quick creationists are to invoke this.

Why would you find that amazing? The data support the opposite of what they want, so there are only so many directions they can go:

1. Misrepresent the data we do have.
2. Argue a non sequitur.
3. Play word games.

Any apologetic argument I've seen that invokes historical method or epistemology has been number 3. If a methodology discussion were being made in good faith, it would try to define a robust methodology in which excluding bad data is at least as important as including good. Instead, apologetic arguments invariably involve a claim that since we're including bad data anyway, it's unfair to exclude bad Christian data.

[Jose Fly]

No that was never the point of thread, the OP makes no mention of the AAAS, that's something you brought up by sharing an open letter from the AAAS and I later challenged something I read in their letter.

Right, the OP was about you not liking how some scientists make it seem as if religion and science are incompatible. As I noted then, that message is also broadcast by creationist organizations.

Since then you've largely been complaining about the AAAS's definition of science, which you believe to be a part of a larger atheistic agenda.

Is that it?

[Jose Fly]

Are you disputing what I said, which was "...the age of the earth does depend on the epistemological foundations one chooses"?

Only in the sense that everything is dependent on the assumption that the reality we perceive actually exists, rather than just being an undetectable charade imposed on us by the gods. IOW, solipsism.

[Jose Fly]

Why would you find that amazing?

Because I don't think they appreciate what that means for all of their religious experiences, history, characters, leaders, and beliefs. If we can never know anything or tell if anything is even real, that applies to all of that as well.

IOW, given a question like "Which is correct, Islam or Christianity", an honest Christian would have to answer "There's absolutely no way to tell"...we can't even tell if either actually exist". Yet when you go to church there's no indication at all that that's their view. They only invoke solipsism when they have nothing else.

The data support the opposite of what they want, so there are only so many directions they can go:

1. Misrepresent the data we do have.
2. Argue a non sequitur.
3. Play word games.

Any apologetic argument I've seen that invokes historical method or epistemology has been number 3. If a methodology discussion were being made in good faith, it would try to define a robust methodology in which excluding bad data is at least as important as including good. Instead, apologetic arguments invariably involve a claim that since we're including bad data anyway, it's unfair to exclude bad Christian data.

Well said. As I keep saying, that's the nature of denialism. They'll do whatever is needed to maintain their denial, with little to no consideration about maintaining a consistent position or even making coherent arguments. Just reflexively deny everything as needed and let the chips fall where they may.