I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
I don't think you have been clear at all. My defense of science didn't pop out of a blue sky. It was a response to claims like yours (but less politely stated) that science is fraud.
I would say that anyone who claims that fraud is the dominant mode of science has not done any original research. It is, of course, possible to lie about observations and findings, but it's a rubber check, and it will eventually bounce.
You have discussed nothing of substance. Your posts have centered on allegations of personal failings of individuals. You haven't specified any particular incident in which a significant finding was falsified.
Science does not deal with God. It can, however, deal with claims made about the physical world. It can determine, for example, that the earth does move and that the sun does not travel around it. This may or may be contrary to religion, but it is contrary to longstanding teachings of churches.
Science cannot prove that there was never a global flood, but it can determine that the available evidence is inconsistent with anything like that. Science cannot prove common descent, but it can demonstrate that arguments against it, so far, are rubbish.
If you have taken the courses you claim to have taken, you already know these things. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, feel free.
I never said “science is fraud”, nor did I say that fraud was its dominant mode and I didn’t say that all scientists are backbiters. Those are all your words. Respectfully, I’m not interested in getting into some sort of prolonged “Hi I’m tit and this is my partner tat” exchange with you.
As to whether or not I’ve done any original research...I suppose that I’m expected to respond to that by saying “Them’s fightin’ words” and come back swinging with freshly inked copies of my CV clutched in my fists. But I’m really not interested in doing that, nor do I think that would advance the discussion on the board.
My credentials are what they are — speculate on them however you’d like. No one else on this board has been asked to post a resume justifying their qualifications for having an opinion, and while I have courteously answered tacticalogics’s request for further information about my background I think I’m about done on that point.
Now, on to more interesting topics than me:
1. Science does not deal with God.
Well, yeah, kinda. You know...since God created everything and all. OK, I’m being flippant and I shouldn’t be. I guess, js1138, there is little chance that we will come on to common ground on this point because your worldview is fundamentally different than mine.
2. Science deals with claims made about the physical world; science deals only with processes that it can observe using methodologies that it can access (something you said earlier, yes?):
That’s true for some things, but it’s a bit disingenuous to apply that to all fields of research — ESPECIALLY those involving evolution. Evolutionary processes are NOT directly observable.
Not only is it not observable, but its not even testable or repeatable — fundamental components to the scientific method. For example, while I can go out into a field and use statistical sampling methods to determine how much data I need to collect in order to represent the whole, I cannot do this for evolutionary processes. I can try to use some of the same tools — statistical sampling methods, models, biochemical analyses, etc. — but they’re all seriously compromised by lack of data. The fossil record is remarkably scarce.
Now, lack of data is a common problem in scientific research. When data is lacking, scientists will adapt by making assumptions. This is a standard practice, especially in dealing with models, and there are plenty of times that this works out just fine — for example, there are some really good predictive models that deal with crop yield, or hydrologic processes, or weather events.
But, again, evolution is different. With questions involving evolution there are so many gaps to be dealth with...in fact, more than gaps there are vast chasms in the fossil record...and so many resultant assumptions that must be made in order to complete any meaningful analysis that the lack of data issue is really not one that can be tiptoed gracefully around. It is commonly said that you can massage statistics to make them say anything you want them to — and that’s very, very true when you’re dealing with these kinds of analyses.
And so the question of how the assumptions are made to compensate for this lack of data does — and SHOULD — loom somewhat larger over the discussion than it might for other areas of scientific endeavor.
Because assumptions are loaded with subjectivity. And bias. The more that subjectivity and bias are injected into the analysis and into the interpretation of the results, the more that the personal worldview of the researcher comes to the fore and casts its shadow over the whole body of work.
So...it’s not really accurate to say that science research is focused on observables and that any dishonesty in findings will eventually come to light. It just doesn’t work that way — scientists have produced great things, don’t get me wrong, but let’s keep the lens clean and be humble and willing to admit it when we come to an area of scientific endeavor that is problematic.
And “evolution” is just very, very problematic.