Products of Creation Science

Actually, devo, I was watching a thing on Nova last night where they found the leap from Creationism to Intelligent Design. Apparently there was some court case back in the 80s where creationism was ruled to not be allowed to be taught in science classes, and there was a textbook that was supposed to be a "Christian Science" book. It was found that the edition prior to the judgement used the term Creationism and the one afterwards had used find and replace with the term Intelligent Design (and apparently at some points they screwed up and wound up with the term Creintelligent Designism or something like that).

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Yes and many more after the one I pointed out.
My point was that the poeple who crank out "facts" need to be checked on.
The folks here have yet to tell me if they personally have seen or checked anything for themselves. Well there is one but I am waiting to see more of their view...

This is actually what the peer review process in academic journals is all about. I was part of a group that was responsible for peer reviewing a paper (well, part of it was delegated to me, but whatever), and we had to figure out if their experiments were valid, new, and interpreted their results in a consistent manner.

As someone with a published paper, I've also had my own work go through the peer review process.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by The_Griffin

I really fucking hate myself for playing Devil's Advocate, but could you possibly link to the paper that you reviewed and the one you had published RR, and give any details you remember about the peer review process for both?

As magi said, I don't have anything to do with the evolution/ID debate in my professional work, but here's a link to some work I was part of a few years ago: ISIJ International I doubt it'll be interesting to anyone around here.

The paper I helped look at I can't link you to since it was rejected because it didn't get accepted. The research group I was part of got to review it since they used some of our data in the interpretation of our data, but they completely misinterpreted our research, and didn't actually add anything new to the scientific body of knowledge (actually would have made it worse by putting out bad info!).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Seriously though? if you need to defend your beliefs, theres something wrong with them. Believe in something, stop trying to sell it with this guardhouse lawyer nonsense.

I imagine it's because they don't want false statements about their religion being spread around. I can imagine if I belonged to some group I'd want everyone to at least understand what my viewpoint is before they go off and criticize me for it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I support eugenics, but I worry that the people controlling it would probably just make things worse.

I also imagine abortion has been around ever since people figured out women are the gender that give birth to babies.

I'm not really sure what you want me to say about the book, but looking at just one testimonial makes me kinda feel I know how all of it will be.

Quote:

In my own life I have been confronted with this dilemma and have become convinced that the alternative view of origin by design is worthy of support. For most of my academic career, I was a committed evolutionist and presented the theory of evolution to my students as an established fact. My university training and subsequent scientific endeavors had exposed me exclusively to the evolutionary paradigm and this had molded my thinking. It may well be asked: why the change of heart? In my religious experience I came to accept the Word of God as the most trustworthy book I have ever read. This Word has power to change lives, to lift people up and to give hope. It makes one willing to listen, to compare notes; it challenges one to test its trustworthiness. “Come let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18), says the Word...

Walter J. Veith, zoology

So he doesn't say it presented him a rational argument that made him change his mind, it doesn't say what he read overturned all of the evidence that he had seen no problems with before, all it did was just make him have some gut feeling that there's a wrong with the theory. Personally, I have no problem with people believing in things for this reason. I mean, that's why one form of quantum mechanics is more popular than another. There's multiple forms that correctly explain what's going on, but certain ones are more popular for describing what's physically happening because they just have a stronger gut appeal to more people. It's just when you say that everyone else is wrong and all of their physical evidence is completely wrong because you've got a gut feeling, then it's hard to agree your ideas are scientific.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I think Cro-Magnons preferred infanticide to abortion.

Well, if he can figure out how to smack her on the head with a club so he can bag her, I imagine one of them would figure out if you punch her stomach enough the baby won't pop out.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Maybe Ug eats babies too.

How ya doing, buddy?

Didn't it become clean when Jesus died?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LordsSword

the ultimate end of creation science is to bring people to the acceptance of what they already know.

That creation science is a load of bunk?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

And that neither actually knows the fundamentals of their own arguments.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Temperature is defined arbitrarily. Not just the scale of it, but if we choose to measure it as it goes to zero (as we have chosen) or as it goes to infinity. Hence, cold could be measured as the distance our temperature is from infinity. Hell, heat doesn't exist either. It's just a construct we use to give ourselves a simplified description of the universe. In reality it's just energy in a certain form. It's like asking if the color blue exists. Not really, we just use it as a method of describing something we perceive.

The asking of if humans evolved from monkeys is also a bit flawed, since I'm sure any science professor looking for a fight on religion would do the standard dance around how we didn't evolve from monkeys but had a common ancestor (minor issue).

Quote:

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

This also smacks of current day Creation Science definitions of what science is, and not what is not actually representative of what it truly is.

Quote:

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

Of course, there is a testable hypothesis here which can readily be verified using any sort of modern day or ancient techniques, and with the help of induction, we can make the fairly safe assumption (on the faith that our perception of the rest of the world is real) that the professor's brain exists.

There's nowhere I can't reach.