"Science is an accumulation of ordered knowledge acquired by rigorous observation and documentation of phenomena, and the investigation of possible causes of the phenomena, which can be reduced to a testable hypothesis, either debunked or qualified by process."
And...
"We cannot allow the process to be prejudiced by our cherished notions of an ideal cosmology. "
According to these two statements, it is pointless to say that Creationism or Evolution is a product of scientific inquiry, since none of "the phenomena can be reduced to a testable hypothesis". You can't reproduce the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or even one case of macro evolution, and I can't create the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in six literal days. Now try convincing the God haters of this, who won't even permit the consideration of Creationism in a public forum without the usual calls of legal action, heckling, and gratuitous insults. We don't even need to go that far, for instance, your next paragraph is a outright lie and gratuitous insult at all Creationists.
Advocates of creationism or ID seem to fall into two categories. Some don't appreciate that science is as essential to our survival as raising children to be the mature, intelligent and moral adults needed to propagate our species. Then others - often in a paranoid tone - mischaracterize science as a religion or cult, and they typically fixate on the theories of cosmology and evolution as potential threats to their own religious faith and family values.
I can only assume that this statement arises from a projection of your own paranoia, fear of religion, and little appreciation that science is as essential to our survival. I don't believe for a minute your original statement: "I'm not a scientist, but a student of its development in history and its applications in our world." unless your definition of "student of its development" allows you to only read Scientific American or intellectual dreck from talkorigins.org. How is it possible for you to be "a student of its [science's] development" and not read about Creationists Sir Frances Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Steno, Sir Issac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Samuel F.D. Morse, James Simpson, Louis Pasteur, Henry Margenau, William Paley, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann... to name a few?
I am further offended by the insult to suggest that Creationists are the antithesis of scientists. We are not narrowed eyed hill scoggin that marvels at the flashlight as some sort of magical firestick. After lecturing us on the scientific principle, you turn around, ignore your own words and universally announce all Creationists, by virtue of them being Creationists, as opposed or scared of science. The ultimate slander is that you completely ignore the beliefs of science's founders and state just the opposite by claiming that Creationists stand in the way of science - imperiling the lives of our children. These Creationists who you scorn and mischaracterize (presumably for a person vendetta and agenda) are those who were the founders of modern science. Who in the evolution community has founded a science that benefits mankind based on their evolutionary world view? You talk about endangering the lives of our children, but it is an evolutionary world view that brings us the death cult of abortion, euthenasia, eugenics, communism, moral relativism, extreme environmentalism, genocide, and the destruction of human rights.
Also, I observe that you are very confused about the place of science and religion in world history. Even the pagans in Egypt and Central America furthered their studies of the heavens based on their religious beliefs. The early world based confidence in their finds because they believed that the cosmos had a purpose. Evolutionary cosmogonists categorically reject purpose and have a world view that must accept in toto an accidental, impersonal, pointless, chaotic universe. What do you think is a better legacy to pass on to one's children? A world view that devalues human life and equates it to the same value as a bug, or one that says that all men and women are made in God's image - the very God who created the entire universe. Who is man that the Creator of all things would take special interest in him? It is ignorant and desperate to state that evolutionary cosmogony is superior to monotheism due to its dependency on idle speculation.
A great example of natural selection driving beneficial mutation is the common flu virus. Every year we concoct a new vaccine to combat the outbreak, and every year, a new strain finds its way into our bodies from diseased chickens in China every year.
This statement proves the danger in evolutionary thinking. You accept the contradiction to science that information appears ex nihilo, and that new species of viruses appear out of nothing, or exist out of a beneficial mutation from preceding viruses. You completely and totally ignore history and science when making this foolish statement. When Europeans visited the New World, they brought with them diseases of their own country that did not previously exist in the New World. These people had not developed an immune system (an immune system that defies rational explanation by the evolutionary crowd). No new virus was formed ex nihilo, no mutation was made to an existing strand; no sheep or dandelion turned into a virus that killed the natives; it was simple exposure to a foreign virus on a people who had no built in immunity to it. Similar to your chickens from China.
Another statement based on blind allegiance to a flawed concept. Do sharks have to be the only hungry critter in the ocean? There are countless critters in the ocean, not necessarily with fins, nor those that will bite your hook, that feast upon the dead. It is crazy talk to assume that the ocean is so devoid of life that not one single critter will touch a dead fish for thousands and thousands of years. It requires a mind that unquestionably accepts Alice's Wonderland to think that there are no processes in the ocean that would separate the fish's bones within thousands of years of open exposure. Is this science to you? Blind allegiance to a religious faith, worshipping at the feet of the god of Chance and declaring yourself an accident of birth to an unknown ape who had its origins as lifeless goo?
Ever heard of nucleosynthesis? Essentially, it is a theory - successfully proven by observation
That's total Bravo Sierra. There is no mechanism for producing heavy metals from energy according to Big Bang. The best you folks have is a mathematical formula to make hydrogen, but there isn't the consolidated energy to fuse heavy metals. There is even argument that what we claim to know about the sun's fusion isn't even close to being correct.
It is perfectly clear to me that you have confused "science" with scientists speculating, despite your opening statement.
According to these two statements, it is pointless to say that Creationism or Evolution is a product of scientific inquiry, since none of "the phenomena can be reduced to a testable hypothesis". You can't reproduce the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or even one case of macro evolution, and I can't create the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in six literal days.
Nonsense. Just because we lack the technology to accurately reproduce such a thing, doesn't mean we should throw the theory out. No, instead, we craft theories on aspects of the theory we CAN test, and go from there. It can be something as simple as: "Computer models based on local physics say that any galaxies of redshift z=3 will have the following properties: They will be undergoing violent star formation, they will be highly irregular, and they will have bluer stars than galaxies at redshifts of z=1 (older galaxies). They then go to the telescope, obtain said data, and compare their observations to the models. The process continues ad-infinitum. I see this occurring every day as a valid application of the scientific method, and the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory remain unchanged from the results of these observations.
That's total Bravo Sierra. There is no mechanism for producing heavy metals from energy according to Big Bang. The best you folks have is a mathematical formula to make hydrogen, but there isn't the consolidated energy to fuse heavy metals. There is even argument that what we claim to know about the sun's fusion isn't even close to being correct.
It is you who are spouting BS. Give me a break. Any student of an undergraduate astronomy program knows better. Even students of a physics curriculum know better! There are books and books of tables and tables of fusion reactions that we have SEEN (yes SEEN) occur in experiments here on Earth. For example, you take two 511KeV photons,and voila, you have an electron and an anti electron. This reaction has been seen on earth, and also has been seen in space near distant galaxies in the X-ray spectrum. Likewise, two photons of a certain energy combine to create a proton and anti-proton.
In the BB model, the early universe was so compact, that the universe was extremely hot (hotter than any phoenomenon we see today). At that temperature it was so hot that matter couldn't exist for very long, photons were so energetic that they could create protons and electrons, but they would strike an anti-particle and because photons again. At some point, as the universe expanded, the universe cooled (constant energy in a larger space), and finally it was cold enough that much of the photons condensed into matter, much of which was simple electrons and protons. (The universe decoupled matter from energy) As the universe cooled further, things cooled enough for hydrogen to form, and some helium and deuterium).
From there, just let gravity take over, and you get stars. Fusion reactions take over from there (which have been seen in bombs and reactions (at least up to Carbon) all over the planet)). The Proton-Proton chain takes you from Hydrogen to Helium, the triple alpha cycle takes you from Helium to Carbon, and in larger and larger stars, it gets hot enough to be able to fuse Carbon and Helium into Oxygen, Oxygen and helium into Neon, Neon and Helium into Magnesium, and so on. There are fusion reactions (according to the chemists) all the way up to Fe that creates energy for the star to use to keep alive, but at Iron, there are no reactions that give energy, but instead take energy. So the supernova collapses, which releases the iron and all sorts of free energy to react with Iron to make other elements. So, as you can see, the Big Bang can manufacture the necessary elements.
(See Anders, E. and Grevesse, N., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 (1989). for a very complete list of modes of nucleosynthesis in the universe).
This has proven to be a very reliable method for determining stellar distances, and its accuracy makes it a reliable way to check the accuracy of observations and methods used in astronomy and other areas of physics. We long ago established (through Earthbound expirements) the speed of light, at about 300,000 km per second. This is a constant (like those discovered by Newton, Planck and Hubble) that we us to explain a 13.7 billion year old universe, the process of radioactive decay that gives us approx. ages of fossils, rocks and the Earth and most other phenomena treated by science. These very same constants show up in equations behind every tech. advancement of our time (like superconductors, mircroprocessors and cellphones). The value of the scientific process can be measured not only by the advancement of theory, but by its applications in every industry and endeavor in the world.
Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot challenge theories like evolution or the big bang because they cannot use the language of mathematics to engage the science. Alternative theories must explain the shortcomings of standing theories (beyond inspiring spirited debates about religion, morality and politics). This failure doesn't reflect on the character or intelligence of science's detractors, it reflects the complex and seemingly contradictory nature of the human experience.
I don't discourage critiques of science from any quarter, but it is my experience that proponents of ID and Creationism cannot (or will not) acknowledge the differences between the study of science and the experience of faith. Revelation of faith is subjective, it depends upon the personal experience of an individual, that cannot be quantified or tested by science. The same holds for the power of prayer in one's life.
Scientists may explain faith and prayer as hallucinations caused by chemical triggers in the brain, or even mental illness. They may be atheists who think religious people are nuts and who deny an afterlife or miracles. They be born-again Christians who believe that what is truly real in life is their relationship with Christ. Whatever their subjective beliefs, they must remain true to the objectivity of the scientific process if they value their life's work.
The value of science and its successful applications in technology is the reason that doctors study evolutionary biology when they study anatomy and astronomy grad students work with published PhDs to make their own meaningful impact on our understanding of the universe. I'm not ashamed that I read Scientific American and visit academic websites (like Cambridge U) to learn about inflationary cosmology. I have read essays on Creationism and grew up with some fundamentalist Sunday school teachers who preached disdain for science and especially evolution in a very paranoid tone. My biology teacher in high school discussed Creationism, and encouraged classroom debate, but he understood the differences in how we subjectively experience faith and how we objectivly apply science to study our universe.
I never discuss my faith when defending evolution as a theory and science as a fruitful process because I don't view religion and science as opposite worldviews in perpetual contradiction. As Martin L. King stated, "science and religion are not enemies, science tells us about our universe on the outside, religion tells us about our souls on the inside." Science is no more a religion, than Creationism or ID viable science. So I'll leave it at that.
I get a kick out people who argue for Creationism in these forums, and after a round or two of posts, cast their opponents in political stereotypes, and allege agendas and paranoia, so forth. So I'm not even going to answer false assumptions about my politcal views with an intelligent rebutle.
I'm no expert on natural selection and viruses, or the fossilization of prehistoric fish or the intricate processes of stellar fussion and nucleosynthesis. I'm content to accept science as a magnificent tool for undertanding our universe and impoving our lives here on Earth. And I realize that advances in genetics do not lead to a Hitlerian future in which the government decides whose genes are worth reproducing and whose should be extinguished. Science is a tool and it's up to man to decide how it is applied. People who hold up science as a religion (whoever these people are) are not much different than those who put forth Creationism and ID as science, in that they insult the all of us who put the roles of religion and science in their lives in proper perspective.