LINK

http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000

Answers

LINK

CREATIONISM

LINK

http://skepdic.com/creation.html

Creation scientists can't be seen as real scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only investigation they seem to do is in an effort to prove some scientific claim is false. Creation science sees no need to test its theories, since they have been revealed by God. A theory that is absolutely certain cannot be empirically tested, but empirical testability is the hallmark of a scientific theory. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.

What is most revealing about the militant creationists lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willing and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. In particular, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by militant creationists.

"creation science" non-scientific

The theory of scientific creationism is a good example of a non- scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know," writes Gould, "but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science" (Gould, 1983). What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that  can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. It assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.

When creation scientists do venture into a scientific area, such as the second law of thermodynamics, they botch the science and are notorious for deception and misrepresentation. However, this reputation for dishonesty may be undeserved, as their inept scientific presentations may be due to simple incompetence.

real science

The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered that don't fit with established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually partially or completely replacing the old ones.

Of course, it is possible for scientists to act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional oddball or charlatan in the history of science (or a person of integrity and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really is no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to prevail in the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences such as creation science, where there is no method needed for detecting errors (since it can't err) much less of correcting them.

Some theories, like creationism can't be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with them, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory and the steady state theory can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are "airtight" if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.

creationism as a scientific theory

A theory of creation held by a religious group may be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C., but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin's time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.

LINK

http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html

ancient astronauts and Erich von Ddniken's Chariots of the Gods

The term 'ancient astronauts' designates the speculative notion that aliens are responsible for the most ancient civilizations on earth. The most notorious proponent of this idea is Erich von Ddniken, author of several popular books on the subject. His Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, for example, is a sweeping attack on the memories and abilities of ancient peoples. Von Ddniken claims that the myths, arts, social organizations, etc., of ancient cultures were introduced by astronauts from another world. He questions not just the capacity for memory, but the capacity for culture and civilization itself, in ancient peoples. Prehistoric humans did not develop their own arts and technologies, but rather were taught art and science by visitors from outer space.

Where is the proof for von Ddniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that  he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Ddniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)!

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.

"Creation scientists can't be seen as real scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error."

That would apply to the evolutionist as well with their religion being evolution. I find it a rather smug presumption of man to conclude with any certainty events of thousands or millions of years ago based on their interpretation of evidence.

But this is rather a moot point, unless the purpose is to completely refute the existence of God. Because if one chooses to believe in God, it's best to believe in the God without limits. A God without limits could have created in a matter of minutes or ten million years.

This is the point of modern evolutionary thinking in my few; to deny the existence of God. To that, the book of Proverbs does speak when it says there will come a time when "wisdom is taken from the wise; knowledge from the knowledgable."

Clearly this passage reflects on the distinction between wisdom and knowledge. It is my fear that the zeal to know our origins is to the detriment of understanding

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 27, 2000.

hey CPR, do you ever tire of talking to yourself?

-- uh-huh (guess@who.com), July 27, 2000.

Hiway:

You don't really understand the difference between science and religion, do you? I have learned to not argue with your type. I hate to say this, but CPR is correct and you are something else.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 27, 2000.

No "HiWay", "Evolutionists" is not a "religion". That is a BUNKUM argument to try to gain equal footing for your "creationism" with Science and Science has NO REASON WHATEVER TO GRANT IT.

Evolution IS NOT "BELIEF" anymore than Science is "belief". You use the argument that is dismissed below as in "how to be a creationist". NOTE: I use lower c for creationism, ist or what ever. CREATION is HIS WORK and I have long ago come to the conclusion that what is purported to be "creation science" is the work of humans not working in HIS BEST INTERESTS. In fact, it is so Anti-religion it boggles the mind. Its as if "creation science" were invented by The Very Devil himself to aid his purposes. That would equate people like you as Hand Servants of the Devil.

LIN K

Creation Research, Creation Science"

Creationists love grand- sounding names with a ring of authority.  So much so, that they named their two most prominent  ministries, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, or ICR and CRS for short.  But the members are not researchers so much as lay evangelists.  They develop reams of counterfeit rhetoric, apologetics and polemics  CRAP for short.  The research smacks of the concordance approach ministers use to prepare their sermons, which goes something like this.  First, decide what is to be supported and what denied. (If in doubt, consult The King James.) Next, scour the publications and public utterances of scientists and compile a well-indexed database from these materials. The index should be of the key-word variety, much like biblical concordances, so that you can quote a snippet here, a passage there, etc., to defend everything you decided on beforehand. Defenses prepared in this way are called apologetics. 

If you are defending the Bible, as creationists are, youll need a strategy to deal with the reams of things that flatly contradict your presuppositions.  For this you prepare a litany of ad hominem attacks to intimidate all questioners, friend and foe alike, in hopes of diverting attention away from the embarrassing stuff.  Ad hominem attacks prepared in this way are called polemics.  Should embarrassing stuff ever come up, just fly off the handle with a few of your polemics. 

For the most part, creation research is library work  the kind needed to prepare defenses of the creationists presuppositions. Creation science, is the organized body of CRAP that creationists have amassed. Because of its biblical basis,^{10 11 12 13 14} creation science is so deeply rooted in supernaturalism that modern science wont give it a hearing  which infuriates the creation scientists and their grassroots supporters.  This important issue is worth a closer look for two reasons.  First, to see how the scientific denial of supernaturalism is justified and, second, to see how creationists tie supernaturalism into science and the laws of thermodynamics.

The Status of Supernaturalism in Creation Science.

What disqualifies creationism from modern science is its direct dependence on things supernatural.  This makes it religion, not science.  Depending on the audience, creationists will either soft-pedal the supernatural  as when arguing to get creationism into public school science curricula  or they may flaunt it  as when addressing throngs of bible-believing supporters.  Here are some of the religious ideas creation scientists and their supporters have advocated in the past: 

1. Their supernatural creator idea, which is firmly rooted in the Book of Genesis.¹⁰ 
2. Their miracle mechanism, also described in Genesis, which they think is the only way to explain the origins of life and of everything else in the universe.
3. Intelligent design, which they say pervades nature. By identifying design as the handiwork of God they use the idea in two ways. (A) Everything in nature can be explained as the handiwork of God. (B) They use the same handiwork as evidence that an intelligent designer really exists. [Scientists find(A) and (B) both circular and vacuous.]
4. They claim the law of the conservation of engergy  the first law of thermodynamics  is evidence that the creation, chronicled in Genesis, was absolutely complete; i.e., nothing new has appeared since creation week. (Ask about the subsequent appearance of things like evil or the ongoing creation of entropy via the second law, and you'll witness a very fine polemic.)
5. The seduction of Adam and Eve by Lucifer (a supernatural Angel of Light), we are told, is what unleashed the two-fold, universal curse of death and increasing entropy. So creation science credits a second supernatural agent for the belated origin of the second law of thermodynamics. (Presumably, entropy did not exist prior to the mythical Fall of Adam.)

The Status of Supernaturalism in Modern Science

Closed- minded as it may seem, modern science simply refuses to consider supernaturalism in any form.  I like to put it this way: 

Supernaturally-based ideas, such as Design in nature, miracles and such, are never to be seriously considered in modern science not even when science itself is in disarray because it has no explanations to offer.

This seems unfair, but is not. It is as completely

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.

Do you mean creationists or cretinists?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 27, 2000.

Now I think I understand what one of Charlie's predispositions was to be a y2k debunker: he was probably a superstitions/urban myth debunker long before he ever started debunking y2k.

-- (predispositions@of.optimists), July 28, 2000.

scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

For the trillionth time, science and religion are not in the same f*cking ballpark.

-- please (dont@compare.them), July 28, 2000.

OK, define religion. I will take a shot. Anyone, please help me out.

A religion has a world view, yea a universe-view

A religion has a system of ethics or morality, defined by its universe-view (interesting that most religions tend to concur on what is "right" and what is "wrong". To me this is evidence of a Natural Law, ie, an invisible, non-measurable absolute that governs abstractions in a similar way that invisible, measurable absolutes (like gravity) govern non-abstractions (physical quantities).

A religion has rituals, mantras, approved behaviors.

A religion has an esoteric language.(shiboleths)

A religion is determined by beliefs (faiths), not science.

IMO, there is no conflict between good science and religion. Good science merely explains how God's universe works, as much as possible. But it can never explain why God's universe exists. In the meantime grant unto Dr Strangelove what is Dr Strangelove's and unto God what is God's.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 28, 2000.

To "Z":

It's your misquided presumption to know what my "type" is.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 30, 2000.

More pointedly "Z", I'd like to see what you think my "type" is. Go ahead, define me. I'll admit where you're right and correct you where you're wrong. You're quick to peg, so here's your chance to demonstrate your gifts at discernme

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 30, 2000.