you're reading...
Religion, science

Atheist Ponies Up for Creation Science

Godlessons has a great idea.  Like me, he’s very interested in seeing if Creation Science advocates know how to do science.  More than that, he wants to see some good science in support of creation.  So he’s started the Creationist Science Fair.  Read the blog here.

If you’re not familiar with the basic mechanics of “Creation Science,” you might be surprised to learn that there has never, ever, in the history of Creation Science, been a single accurate piece of information about our universe added to the body of scientific knowledge by a CS experiment. Not one.  Nothing.  Scratch.  Zilch.  Zip.  Bupkus.

I don’t want to let this go lightly.  Creation Scientists claim that their field is an “alternative explanation” to the scientific theories about life, evolution, the age of the earth, etc.  But here’s the rub — Even when they do make claims about the observable universe, they must steal from the scientific method. The most common of these claims involves the age of the earth or the nature of evolutionary change.  There are plenty of books “refuting” the scientific model.   But in order to make their claims, they must use some parts of the scientific method.

There is no alternative methodology in Creation Science.  There is only misuse of Scientific Methodology.

Read that again carefully.  What Creation Science does, when it offers alternative explanations, is to take bits and pieces of the scientific method and apply them to selected bits of data, which they often either take out of context or simply misrepresent or misunderstand.  Their conclusions are not based on taking existing data and applying a non-scientific methodology to it.  They are based on doing poor science without any additional methodology.

So back to the original and most salient point.  Because Creation Scientists use poor science to reach their conclusions, they do not — and apparently cannot — make a single claim about the objective universe which accurately predicts or explains anything. And to this date, not a single thing they’ve done has passed any kind of fact checking or review for objective truth.

Which is why the Creation Science Fair is a great idea.  Let’s give Creation Scientists the opportunity to put their science out there.  Maybe there is – as some have claimed — a conspiracy of “scientific elites” to exclude creationism from real scientific inquiry.  If that’s true, then bringing the science to the general public is the way to fix it.  I find it hard to believe that the conspiracy could apply to everyone in the world who’s ever studied science enough to review for accuracy, reliability, etc.  So let’s encourage these folks to get their science in front of the public.  Let’s see the experiments.  Let’s test the predictions.

Advertisements

Discussion

18 thoughts on “Atheist Ponies Up for Creation Science

  1. One of the main arguments for “creation science” and “intelligent design” is that the evidence of design is all around us. They, for example, would point to the complexity and design of a watch and compare it to a human cell.

    Another popular one, is that there is no alternatives to the design hypothesis, as they claim that evolution isn’t proven and is “only a theory”,. However, even if evolution was disproven it doesn’t mean that they’re correct, as going with a lack of alternatives as “proof” that you’re correct is an argument from ignorance. They may also point out that just because it’s an argument from ignorance doesn’t make it wrong. They are actually right about this. However, it gives us no good reason to hold that view and the burden of proof is on them.

    That’s how science works.

    Posted by cptpineapple | November 17, 2010, 10:59 pm
  2. Ha Ha Ha What a moron and cheap little Bastard. The guy looks like he lives in his parents basement watching his porn while making up a stupid contest.

    Apparently He is unaware that he is simply stealing the idea from The origin-of-life-prize that for the last 12 years offers $1,000,000 dollars prize, thats right! $1,000,000 dollars!, to anyone that can provide empirical evidence of a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.
    http://lifeorigin.org/

    Still after 12 years, no winners!

    Posted by PG | November 18, 2010, 1:37 am
  3. Hamby,

    Again you are guilty of parrotting the Atheist party line without questioning its vaidity.

    You state:
    “If you’re not familiar with the basic mechanics of “Creation Science,” you might be surprised to learn that there has never, ever, in the history of Creation Science, been a single accurate piece of information about our universe added to the body of scientific knowledge by a CS experiment. Not one. Nothing. Scratch. Zilch. Zip. Bupkus.”

    PG says:
    Hamby, you moron. Do you know that probably the most important discovery in human history and about our universe is the Big Bang, and it was discovered by the Jesuit Preist George Lemaitre !!!!! Based on his belief in a creator…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    Posted by PG | November 18, 2010, 2:54 am
  4. And lastly,,

    You state:
    “And to this date, not a single thing they’ve done has passed any kind of fact checking or review for objective truth.”

    Well Hamby,
    The followng are a few of the dosens of ID experiments published in main stream scientific journals as proof that your an uneducated liar…

    “Investigating a General Biology” by John Bracht, Complexity 8(3):31-41 (2003) (critiquing models of self-organization for the origin of biological complexity)

    “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” by Stephen C. Meyer,
    Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239 (2004) (explicitly advocating that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of biological information in the Cambrian explosion)

    Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004). (testing for irreducible complexity among protein-protein binding sites)

    Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, 98:71-96 (2005). (using explicitly ID assumptions to elucidate the behavior of centrioles—with potential applications to cancer research)

    . A. Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

    David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

    John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

    D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.

    W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

    M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

    D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

    So if I submit these experiments which were validated by the scientific method and peer review process to the basement dwelling Atheist, do I get the money?

    .

    Posted by PG | November 18, 2010, 2:58 am
  5. Apparently He is unaware that he is simply stealing the idea from The origin-of-life-prize that for the last 12 years offers $1,000,000 dollars prize, thats right! $1,000,000 dollars!, to anyone that can provide empirical evidence of a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.
    http://lifeorigin.org/

    So, anyone else feel like only an idiot would submit an entry to a contest with a $500 application fee? That doesn’t sound like a scam to me or anything…

    Still after 12 years, no winners!

    Amazing that. A creationist contest, with unnamed judges whose decision is incontestable, irrevocable, and costs at least $500 to even apply has no winners? I can’t even find any prior applicants to review. I wonder why that is…

    Ha Ha Ha What a moron and cheap little Bastard. The guy looks like he lives in his parents basement watching his porn while making up a stupid contest.

    Perhaps try not looking in a mirror.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 18, 2010, 8:50 am
  6. The followng are a few of the dosens of ID experiments published in main stream scientific journals as proof that your an uneducated liar…

    I only bothered to review a few of these, but in all cases I found that they either did not come to the same conclusions as you, or were heavily refuted in other critiques.

    Again, nice to see your misunderstanding powers are still in order.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 18, 2010, 8:55 am
  7. there has never, ever, in the history of Creation Science, been a single accurate piece of information about our universe added to the body of scientific knowledge by a CS experiment. Not one. Nothing. Scratch. Zilch. Zip. Bupkus.

    I like to put Creation Science under the umbrella of “Methodological Supernaturalism” as a counterpoint to the scientific method; Methodological Naturalism.

    Supernaturalism as a whole has never added any new knowledge about the world around us, Creation Science included. The only thing that Methodological Supernaturalism has done is add more confusion to the world due to the millions of disparate conclusions it draws.

    Personal revelations, demons, angels, miracles, etc. have never helped us to understand any phenomena more. They do the opposite. Specifically, there’s no conscilience in Methodological Supernaturalism, which is the most striking difference between Methodological Naturalism.

    Posted by J. Quinton | November 18, 2010, 9:57 am
  8. Um… PG, it would probably help if you read the articles you cite to support your position:

    After the war, he studied physics and mathematics…
    In 1923, he became a graduate student in astronomy…
    He worked with Arthur Eddington who initiated him into modern cosmology, stellar astronomy, and numerical analysis…
    where he registered for the doctorate in sciences….

    PG Wrote: PG says:
    Hamby, you moron.

    PG, you are without a doubt the biggest dipshit I’ve ever encountered on the internet, and that’s including that dipshit David Mabus, who at least has the decency to never get past the spam filter.

    But please, keep posting. You’re the best argument against… well… anything you argue for… that I have seen.

    Posted by hambydammit | November 18, 2010, 3:57 pm
  9. Regarding the journal articles PG linked, I recognize that he’s incapable of comprehending any of them as they relate to my post, but yeah. No help.

    I’m not going to bother to respond to them individually in a comment. Anyone who wants to look them up can see that they’re either using the scientific method and being accepted or not using the scientific method and only gaining support from ID proponents.

    And just in case, PG, let me see if you can get this through your Neanderthal cranium: Christians can use science, dipshit.

    Posted by hambydammit | November 18, 2010, 4:05 pm
  10. PG wrote:

    The followng are a few of the dosens of ID experiments published in main stream scientific journals as proof that your an uneducated liar…

    Do not meddle in the affairs of scientists, PG, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.

    Posted by Ian | November 18, 2010, 6:50 pm
  11. The blogroll contains Richard Dawkins – well, enough said.

    Posted by antipodean59 | November 18, 2010, 6:59 pm
  12. I consider it a win if just get hamby and other frothing atheists to acknowledge that theist scientists are just as educated and talented as atheist scientists, and that to propose anything else is simply propaganda and prejudice.

    This was a good win…

    .

    Posted by PG | November 19, 2010, 12:22 am
  13. *sigh*

    No, PG. Hambydammit acknowledged that Christians can do science. As can Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Jews, etc. They can do good science or bad science, and all the gradations between. But when they do science, they make arguments based on evidence, they draw provisional conclusions based on experiments and other sorts of empirical tests, they revise based upon further evidence, etc. Those who call themselves Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design Theorists either do bad science or fake science, or no science at all, but Hambydammit’s primary claim is accurate: There has never, ever been a single accurate piece of information about our universe added to the body of scientific knowledge by their efforts.

    Hambydammit was also correct in stating that you are the best own-goal-scoring troll ever! Keep being a loser and declaring victory, PG! This appears to be your one and only talent, but oh, what a gift for it you have!

    Posted by G Felis | November 19, 2010, 12:53 am
  14. Hamby,

    Thank you for acknowledging that a creation scientist trusting in his bible, is responsible for perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science, the Big Bang… Im sure it doesent take away the sting of you looking like a dipshit for saying “there has never, ever, in the history of Creation Science, been a single accurate piece of information about our universe added to the body of scientific knowledge by a CS experiment. Not one. Nothing. Scratch. Zilch. Zip. Bupkus.

    But thats par for the course for you…

    Posted by PG | November 19, 2010, 12:57 am
  15. Thank you for acknowledging that a creation scientist trusting in his bible, is responsible for perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science, the Big Bang…

    So, where exactly did anyone say this?

    Hambydammit was also correct in stating that you are the best own-goal-scoring troll ever! Keep being a loser and declaring victory, PG! This appears to be your one and only talent, but oh, what a gift for it you have!

    Well said sir.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 19, 2010, 10:28 am
  16. creation scientist

    Oxymoron much?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | November 19, 2010, 10:29 am
  17. Alex,

    I hate to break the news to you but Atheists used to only think that the universe was infinite and stooped to chastising creation scientists for teaching that the universe had a beginning.

    How did that turn out Alex?

    The fact that it was a jesuit preist who postulated the Big Bang from the genesis account and used the scientific method to validate it, must be like a big “fuck you” to Atheists..

    BTW, Please dont respond with metaphysical theories such as a multiverse, unless you have actually proven that another one exists…

    Posted by PG | November 20, 2010, 4:51 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: