nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 531:
Line 531: + + Line 546:
Line 548: + + + + + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron: Hmmm, a lack of valid arguments.
:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::And as I said, those journals are peer-reviewed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/38/56/ All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.]" And here's [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ the statement of faith in question]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/38/56/ All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.]" And here's [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ the statement of faith in question]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah! "Journal of Creation" is just the old TJ renamed. Which, if memory serves, published a fair bit on Humphreys' execrable attempts at cosmology. Now ''there's'' a reliable source...though to be fair, they also published some sound refutations of the same. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah! "Journal of Creation" is just the old TJ renamed. Which, if memory serves, published a fair bit on Humphreys' execrable attempts at cosmology. Now ''there's'' a reliable source...though to be fair, they also published some sound refutations of the same. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah! So your answer is to mock it! Great argument! No argument! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Commonly, a scientist is someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, but I agree that the term does not have to be used that strictly. If a creationist calling himself a scientist should be qualified, why not the same for an evolutionist?
:::The AAAS rationale is self-serving nonsense. Who defines "credible"? They do. And I believe that ID ''has'' proposed scientific means of testing its claims; certainly creation science has. And how do you scientifically test evolution? Not some details of it, but evolution itself? Or naturalism, on which it is based?
:::So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Creation science ''does'' involve science, and details of it ''can'' be tested, unsubstantiated assertions notwithstanding. And creationists do ''not'' criticise science—they support it. As for the venom and falsehoods slung at/about creationists... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)