nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron: Slander without substance, testability
:::::::::I acknowledge that they are, but their standards are very poor. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I acknowledge that they are, but their standards are very poor. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 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)
::::::I thought the implied argument was fairly obvious. TJ published utter nonsense about basic physics, ergo not a reliable source. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I thought the implied argument was fairly obvious. TJ published utter nonsense about basic physics, ergo not a reliable source. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Same for you. Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 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."
::::Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Theistic evolution owes virtually nothing to theism; it's naturalistic evolution with God tacked on. Now ''there's'' an oxymoron for you! Yes, it may be methodological naturalism, but the effect is the same—rule God out from consideration. Where's the scientific test for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 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)
::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do a search for "11:56" on [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 this page] and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)