otseng wrote:The requirement for anything being taught in a science class should simply be - can it fit with the scientific method paradigm? There might be unknown elements in it, but it should not totally disqualify it from being treated as a science.
This is absolutely correct. The key is "scientific method." There are different versions of scientific methods; the Scientific Method (capitalized) that is presented in textbooks is by no means used universally. In some fields, it is not used at all. A recent description of a more accurate view can be found in Harwood, W.S. et al A New Model for Inquiry. Journal of College Science Teaching v. 33 no. 7 (July/August 2004) p. 29-33.
I think that the simplest description of scientific methodology is this:
1. get the data.
2. interpret the data.
3. assess whether your interpretation is compatible with other data.
4. re-interpret if necessary.
Normally, I would stop at #2. However, #3 and #4 are really very important. Manuscript reviewers often say things like "but this interpretation overlooks XXX, and is incompatible with it." In such a case, the interpretation must be revised.
That is, one cannot look at one particular data set and derive an interpretation without assessing how that interpretation fits with the rest of what is known.
There is an additional bit that is important to note: "the rest of what is known" is quite broad. For evolution, it includes the known rates of erosion and other geological processes, the known rates of mutation, the known rates of radioactive decay, and a great many other things. Any explanation must be consistent with all of these other things. Conversely, all of these other things are part of the information that one uses in developing one's interpretation of new data. Only if new data simply cannot be reconciled with some of what we already know do we see a compelling need to go back and re-investigate what we think we know.
If there are things we cannot fully explain--things that are not known--we list them as such. We also think about plausible mechanisms that are based on what we know. If we can develop plausible mechanisms, then we consider these to be "working models" that are not confirmed, but that provide a basis for designing new investigations.
According to this scientific paradigm, we must start with the data. This is very different from developing an hypothesis, as
Walt Brown has done, that would provide a mechanism for part of the creation story. In Brown's approach, he has started with the creation story, and developed a mechanistic story to fit it. That his mechanism is not consistent with other known information is what makes it a poor explanation. That he holds to his mechanism in spite of contrary evidence is what makes it non-scientific. To be consistent with the scientific paradigm, he would need to modify his hypothesis to take the additional evidence into account--which would probably require throwing out the hypothesis and building a new one.
This is, perhaps, the crux of my response to your comment,
otseng wrote: But, if the natural world is being studied, should it not be in a science class? Especially if it meets the standards of the scientific method? In all my posts on supporting the CM, I have only looked at the physical evidence of the world/universe.
Indeed, you have looked only at the physical evidence of the world. I would argue, however, that you have looked at subsets of the available data, and not at additional data that contradict the conclusions. This is a very easy thing to do, and is done by scientists all the time. It is difficult to step back and integrate addtional data into the explanation, especially since this requires going farther afield, and often outside of one's area of expertise. Still, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive model of what happened.
Similarly, it is the crux of the mattter in the traditional challenges to evolution. These usually are aimed at one specific issue (like transitional fossils), and do not take into account the remaining data that exist (like the genetic mechanisms that underlie change in populations). When the additional data are taken into account, the challenge is seen to be spurious.
It is for these reasons that mrmufin has said that CM has no scientific merit. I translate that statement as follows: the CM is based upon recieved wisdom; those aspects of the physical world that have been interpreted as being consistent with the CM are also consistent with the EM; the CM explanations for certain aspects of the world are at odds with additional evidence; therefore, the CM explanation is ruled out by the additional evidence, leaving the EM as the sole contender. It is not that the CM has no inherent scientific merit, for it was accepted as the true scientific explanation for centuries. It is that more recent evidence contradicts it, and therefore to retain scientific merit, the CM would have to be modified to eliminate the contradictions. That it is not modified, but retained
because it is Received Wisdom is what removes its scientific merit.
Of course, we can always modify the CM to the "appearance of age" model, in which god created everything so that it would look like the earth is old and evolution has occurred. Regrettably, there is no way to test this model. The fact that it is
inherently untestable is what removes scientific merit from this model. It may very well be true, but we cannot find out. Nor can we develop a plausible mechanism for it to occur. It is entirely beyond our comprehension.
)
