Is it time to explain the difference between "creation science" and real science, again..?

Question

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism, it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. These particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligence..?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Is the difference clear now..?

Answer 1

enough of the psuedo questions which are actually rants.
enough of the "Is it time..." posts you contantly make!

Get a blog....that is what they are for. If you put this on a blog, maybe people would read it, rather than getting ticked off when they encounter another rant.

Answer 2

And popular technology is greater suitable ? continually getting the comparable effect for the comparable attempt is seen scientific information (or as good as). in the time of history, technology has "proved" issues via achieving the comparable attempt repeatedly, and getting the comparable effect... just to be shown incorrect via the subsequent technology of scientists. As nutty because it sounds, in simple terms given which you have a theory that passes all your checks, would not advise that that is unavoidably spectacular. you is probably no longer working the spectacular checks, and oblivious to the reality. Why could i think that the earth is 4.5 billion years previous based upon on the instant's thinking ? what's to end the subsequent technology of popular scientist "proving" the translation of the outcomes advance into incorrect ? who's to assert that their presumptions on decay are spectacular ? And with billions of years of land erosion, why are not the oceans packed with airborne dirt and mud ? and how is popular technology any further suitable whilst it invents darkish count via fact in any different case, none of that is astrophysics calculations make any experience ? it particularly is "creation" technology territory in case you inquire from me. And BTW, which set of climate replace scientists could i think ? They the two have "information". you could snigger at creation scientists, and that i''ll snigger suited alongside you. yet i'm going to additionally snigger at you for believing that our present day set of scientists has it 'all' worked out, whilst it includes the huge questions. we are an prolonged way off having the spectacular to snigger at every person's loopy notions. 2 under: actual technology would not have an ideological & philosophical schedule of hate in the back of it, like yours does, No actual technology is all approximately investment. Lie, cheat, scouse borrow; yet it takes to get greater investment. I call them fundingmentalists.

Answer 3

So science that makes a priori assumptions, such as ruling out supernatural explanations for observations when such explanations are supported by the facts, is "real" science?

Another illegal post, btw.

Answer 4

I salute your efforts. I really do. I just wish that the folks you were addressing actually read what you wrote insted of the usual handwaving dismissal.

Answer 5

Go here. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/index.shtml

Answer 6

Same song...second version? Please, give it a rest. It is a moot point. No one is going to be changed by the conflict...not us, and not you.