Evolution and the Public School System (country, house, Genesis, Religious)

Kevorkian Logic · 03-22-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

Intelligent Design is not a valid science because it only excepts data that conforms with or that can be manipulated to conform with a pre-conceived, unscientific, and very irrefutable theory, irrefutable to the creationist that is. Creationism will never accept scientific data that contradicts biblical scripture, and any data that is remotely in the ballpark of agreeing with scriptural accounts of creation is amplified and manipulated to conform to creationist theory.
In Science you begin with a hypothesis create and perform an experiment to test its validity, and if the results support your hypothesis, you have a theory, or at least the beginning of one, if the results contradict your theory you go back to the drawing board to create another hypothesis. This is the scientific method which we all know and love.
Creationism starts with an religiously irrefutable theory and works backwards from there, which is absolutely a ludicrous and completely biased practice.
The fact is that the book of Genesis was not meant to be a scientific treaty of the origin of the universe. It is the Hebrew creation myth. Does it mean that there isn't wisdom inherent in the story? Absolutely not, but religious zealots have to stop trying to equate that wisdom with scientific fact.

The scientific method you are referring to of getting results that contradict and remaking the hypothesis, is referred to as ad hoc or "curve fitting" if you will, and is not a "technically" valid form of creating a scientific theory.

I hate to argue the religious side, but the fact that they stick with the original theory and use auxiliary hypotheses to back this theory makes it more scientifically valid, than the first method you were referring to.

(side note: As in my post before it is clear I believe in evolution, so please don't jump on me for being a creationists and spew anti-religious **** at me)

SATCHMO · 03-23-2009, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevorkian Logic

The scientific method you are referring to of getting results that contradict and remaking the hypothesis, is referred to as ad hoc or "curve fitting" if you will, and is not a "technically" valid form of creating a scientific theory.

Yes, you're right, and you brought up a good point. for the sake of brevity and simplicity I kinda' overlooked that fact for the sake of putting the point across that conducting scientific research with the intent of reinforcing one's personal religious convictions is biased, untrustworthy,and shouldn't be considered legitimate. But I think it all comes down to intent. The intent of the creationist is to conform science to fit neatly into the niche of their own personal convictions, and that's just wasted research. We need to accept a certain degree of mutual exclusivity between mythology and science, the numinous and the empirical, and accept them both in their appropriate realms.

(side note: As in my post before it is clear I believe in evolution, so please don't jump on me for being a creationists and spew anti-religious **** at me)[/QUOTE]