David Paszkiewicz's idea of science

[Bryan]

It may not be your issue, but it is mine. I'm interested in what will make our lives better.

As excuses for changing the subject go, that's rather weak.

Oh, OK. I suggest you study the meaning of proof. It doesn't always mean absolute. If you knew anything about science OR philosophy, you would know that.

This again!

I do know that, and as I have already pointed out, the admission of the non-absolute meaning is that you set aside absolute proof that the creation museum is anti-science. Not that anyone has remotely approached that on an evidential basis in the first place. Admit that the charge is less than absolute and you largely lose the force of the charge in the first place. And the deeper we dig into the philsophy of science surrounding the issue, the more difficult it will be to sustain the charge.

That's why we're now at the point where your side is down to We know anti-science when we see it combined with baseless personal attacks.

That's because I'm interested in what works best and less interested in philosophical points that don't relate to anything.

Everything works after a fashion. "Best" is a values judgment that cannot come from science.

Your side can hardly take a step without stepping in it, as we see yet again.

[Bryan]

You assumed that, and you were wrong. There was no basis for you to assume that scientific provisionality is any less subject to revision than any other scientific principle. I shouldn't have had to describe it to you. If you understood science, it would have been obvious.

I understand science just fine. I simply don't assume that you understand science, and if you communicate in terms that resemble absolutes without any attempt to make clear that you are not speaking in absolutes then I have little reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Just because the Creationist Ignorance Emporium advances claims to absolute truth doesn't mean they have anything to back it up. Science, with all its provisionality and uncertainty, works better, and history proves it.

Perhaps you should list those claims to absolute truth, so that we can assess whether or not you have read their work approximately as charitably as you wish your own to be read.

Is that the problem, Bryan? You want absolutes. No wonder you don't make any sense. Absolute certainty? Not in this life.

If you wish to concede doubt as to whether the museum is anti-science then please be my guest. And from that point we can discuss whatever evidence you wish that provides whatever degree of certainly you would attach to your claim. You know it when you see it will not be accepted as a reasonable response.

[Guest Guest]

Lacking absolutes, how does one acquire the ability to support the claim that the creation museum is "anti-science"?

The same way people have always acquired knowledge. Your statement makes no sense. Are you saying someone does have absolutes? If so, who and what are they and where do they lead?

It's not my problem we're talking about, here. It's your side that is talking in absolutes and thus needs to back it up with absolutes.

That's your problem, Bryan. You don't understand what the other side is saying. The argument is that science is more reliable than scripture or other ancient sources because it's based on evidence and reason. That's a very practical statement and it always subjects itself to being tested by new evidence. So far and for as long as we have had science, science is more reliable. That's just a fact but if the evidence supports the other side, science would have to incorporate scripture. Don't hold your breath.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

You assumed that, and you were wrong. There was no basis for you to assume that scientific provisionality is any less subject to revision than any other scientific principle. I shouldn't have had to describe it to you. If you understood science, it would have been obvious.

Just because the Creationist Ignorance Emporium advances claims to absolute truth doesn't mean they have anything to back it up. Science, with all its provisionality and uncertainty, works better, and history proves it.

Is that the problem, Bryan? You want absolutes. No wonder you don't make any sense. Absolute certainty? Not in this life.

"Absolute certainty"? God is alive and loves you, that's an absolute certainty.

[Guest Guest]

Heh. Ironically, that's exactly what I'm pointing out. I'm well aware that all Popperian criteria have exceptions and that there is no absolutely rigid scientific method. That is exactly what makes the "anti-science" charge so hard to back up.

That's a ridiculous argument. If someone tried to construct a philosophy by randomly pulling philosophical ideas out of a hat, you wouldn't call that philosophy. When the Ignorance Emporium proposes that we can find out about the universe by reading The Bible, and demeans real science to boot, that's as anti-scientific as the random choice "method" is anti-philosophical.

Right, so even if you don't have a prayer of describing logically and rationally what makes them anti-science, at least you can say that they don't possess the right attitude. No balance or whatever. Keep it nebulous enough so that you can't be expected to back it up with reason.

What makes the Ignorance Emporium anti-scientific is that there is no theory and no empirical check on its claims; and also that it dismisses and even mocks the real science. There's no science in that approach at all. Both elements are missing, whereas science requires not only that they be present but that they be balanced.

The great creative geniuses in every field are exceptionally creative; science is no exception. The great creative scientists have known how to balance theory and empiricism to achieve a spectacular, transcendent result. That's what makes them geniuses. They need the discipline firmly under their belts but once they have it, they play and experiment and test against the edges of current theories. All of that involves judgment, and most geniuses are strongly guided by intuition, especially in their most creative moments. Often it doesn't even matter whether they're right. The very act of pushing the envelope in an interesting way opens the field to new discoveries.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DARiLCJc0...lt&resnum=8

http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node107.html

http://www.astro.washington.edu/courses/as...p/Chapter15.pdf

Everyday practitioners in science, too, make judgments all the time: judgments about which fields of research to pursue, which theories are the most promising, etc. Bryan, you seem to want a neat little robotic model; that's just not how it works. As long as human beings are doing the science, it's going to be an art and a series of judgment calls, as well as a discipline. The only people who think that science is cut and dried are people who don't do science and don't understand it.

[Guest Guest]

"Absolute certainty"? God is alive and loves you, that's an absolute certainty.

Bryan, perhaps it would be easier for you to explain how the "museum" meets the criteria of science. After all, it's easier to make an affirmative case than it is to prove a negative.

[Bryan]

Lacking absolutes, how does one acquire the ability to support the claim that the creation museum is "anti-science"?

The same way people have always acquired knowledge. Your statement makes no sense.

It was a question, not a statement.

Are you saying someone does have absolutes?

Nope. Just asking a question. Apparently you're not the one from whom I will obtain a real answer.

That's your problem, Bryan. You don't understand what the other side is saying.

Hmmm. And it has absolutely nothing to do with their choice of words?

Regardless, as I have pointed out more than once, conceding that the claim was not absolute only makes the claim weaker and continues to leave us waiting for the evidence in support.

The argument is that science is more reliable than scripture or other ancient sources because it's based on evidence and reason.

The claim was that the creation museum is "anti-science." I don't blame you too much for trying to change the subject, given that your side is having so much trouble supporting its assertions.

[Guest Guest]

I'm defending the museum from the charge that it is anti-science. Suggest otherwise and you've strayed from the truth.

No respectable philosopher, or scientist, would defend this abomination. This so-called museum is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence.

It is an attack on science because it not only rejects the scientific method but also portrays the fruits of science as evil. Science is an aspect of modernism. Here is where the Creationist Monument to Ignorance say modernism leads. (http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2343.html ) No reasonable person would fail to see the disrespect toward science.

It is also an attack on philosophy. A repeated strategy throughout the museum is to pit “human reason” against “God’s word,” with “God’s word” portrayed as representing the unquestionable and absolute truth in every instance. This is a central theme of the “museum,” or more aptly, the theme park.

(http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2331.html

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2334.html

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2344.html )

Because reason is the primary tool and method of philosophy, this attack on reason is also an attack on philosophy.

They aren’t even honest enough to acknowledge that their appeal to “God’s word” is their claim. Instead, they present it as fact. Philosophically and intellectually, this is dishonest and shameful. Bryan, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.

[Bryan]

Bryan, perhaps it would be easier for you to explain how the "museum" meets the criteria of science. After all, it's easier to make an affirmative case than it is to prove a negative.

It will be easier for you to obtain replies from me when you reply to my posts.

[Bryan]

That's a ridiculous argument. If someone tried to construct a philosophy by randomly pulling philosophical ideas out of a hat, you wouldn't call that philosophy. When the Ignorance Emporium proposes that we can find out about the universe by reading The Bible, and demeans real science to boot, that's as anti-scientific as the random choice "method" is anti-philosophical.

Good analogy, wrong conclusion. Pulling philosophical ideas randomly out of a hat could be a reasonable expression of the philosophy of fatalism. Enjoy the feeling of hoist with your own petard.

What makes the Ignorance Emporium anti-scientific is that there is no theory and no empirical check on its claims;

So, unlike the apparently absolute statements of the supporters of science the statements of the museum advocates are absolute?

What is your evidence for that, other than by drawing from your own prejudice?

and also that it dismisses and even mocks the real science. There's no science in that approach at all. Both elements are missing, whereas science requires not only that they be present but that they be balanced.

There is plenty of "real science" in evidence at the museum. The photos show many accurately derived "scientific" facts about the creatures featured in the various exhibits, such as the posture of the dinosaurs (tails aloft for balance instead of dragged on the ground).

Oh--but you were not speaking in absolutes when you said "There's no science ..."--you actually meant that there is some science.

Right?

The great creative geniuses in every field are exceptionally creative; science is no exception. The great creative scientists have known how to balance theory and empiricism to achieve a spectacular, transcendent result. That's what makes them geniuses. They need the discipline firmly under their belts but once they have it, they play and experiment and test against the edges of current theories. All of that involves judgment, and most geniuses are strongly guided by intuition, especially in their most creative moments. Often it doesn't even matter whether they're right. The very act of pushing the envelope in an interesting way opens the field to new discoveries.

Wow. That could have come from Paul LaClair himself. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

What you've written could pass for doubletalk. Explain why adherence to the Bible could not pass for a creative balance of theory and empiricism.

Everyday practitioners in science, too, make judgments all the time: judgments about which fields of research to pursue, which theories are the most promising, etc. Bryan, you seem to want a neat little robotic model; that's just not how it works.

If I seem to want a neat little robotic model, you can ascribe that feeling to your own subjective impression unless you wish to actually take the trouble to show evidence that the impression comes from what I write.

I'm using a form of the Socratic method to illustrate to the LaClabots that their judgments about the museum may run afoul of their own supposed principles. I don't really care what justifications they try to use. Whatever they come up with, I'll deal with it in its own terms.

As long as human beings are doing the science, it's going to be an art and a series of judgment calls, as well as a discipline. The only people who think that science is cut and dried are people who don't do science and don't understand it.

OK, so you should agree with me that "anti-science" won't be easy to pin down given that science itself is difficult to pin down.

Or am I missing something?

[Bryan]

No respectable philosopher, or scientist, would defend this abomination.

Sure they would. It just depends on what criteria they were expected to defend. Trust you to come up with the "stupid lawyer trick" of immediately tossing out the specific criterion that I have mentioned.

This so-called museum is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence.

But you're not speaking in absolute terms or anything. Right?

It is an attack on science because it not only rejects the scientific method but also portrays the fruits of science as evil.

Hmmm. And here I thought we'd been over the fact that there is no "the" scientific method.

Some might say that ignoring the fact that there is no "the" scientific method is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence (though no doubt not in absolute terms!).

Science is an aspect of modernism.

Is it? Do you know what "modernism" is? And would you therefore deny that any scientific inquiry took place prior to the advent of "modernism"? If not, then your statement would appear to serve little purpose.

Here is where the Creationist Monument to Ignorance say modernism leads. (http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2343.html ) No reasonable person would fail to see the disrespect toward science.

You appear to now be conflating science and modernism. Science makes no value judgments. The museum exhibit you linked mentions neither science nor modernism, though it does talk about "the modern world"--but "modern world" is not necessarily talking about modernism. It most often simply means the contemporary world. And, when it comes to that, it seems fair to blame modernism, at least in part, for cultural changes such as changes in the traditional form of marriage and the popularization of euthanasia.

It is also an attack on philosophy. A repeated strategy throughout the museum is to pit “human reason” against “God’s word,” with “God’s word” portrayed as representing the unquestionable and absolute truth in every instance. This is a central theme of the “museum,” or more aptly, the theme park.

The slides you linked do not appear to have anything at all in them representing "God's word" as the unquestionable and absolute truth in every instance. It looks like you're just making that part up out of thin air. If you can refer us to a slide that would actually support that assertion then I recommend that you link it without delay.

Because reason is the primary tool and method of philosophy, this attack on reason is also an attack on philosophy.

That doesn't follow, since philosophy encompasses anti-reason positions. Anyhow, I've already explained that "Human reason" is Christianese for wrong thinking. Major branches of Christian theology teach that the mind of man is fallen and will therefore fail to use reason properly. So your argument is a non-starter.

They aren’t even honest enough to acknowledge that their appeal to “God’s word” is their claim. Instead, they present it as fact.

Is that a fact? Or is it your claim?

If you expect charitable interpretation of your words, then get in the habit of offering it to others.

Philosophically and intellectually, this is dishonest and shameful. Bryan, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.

The shameful thing is your attempt to separate my narrow defense of the museum from its broader teachings.

Though your pathetic follow-up arguments do come in a close second.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Guest @ Jun 21 2009, 11:17 PM) *

Bryan, perhaps it would be easier for you to explain how the "museum" meets the criteria of science. After all, it's easier to make an affirmative case than it is to prove a negative.

It will be easier for you to obtain replies from me when you reply to my posts.

OK, so explain how the so-called Creation Museum meets scientific criteria.

[Guest Guest]

Or am I missing something?

Yes.

[Guest Guest]

Good analogy, wrong conclusion. Pulling philosophical ideas randomly out of a hat could be a reasonable expression of the philosophy of fatalism. Enjoy the feeling of hoist with your own petard.

Ah, Bryan, you're such a child. A fatalist wouldn't bother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Check behind you for that petard.

[Guest Guest]

There is plenty of "real science" in evidence at the museum. The photos show many accurately derived "scientific" facts about the creatures featured in the various exhibits, such as the posture of the dinosaurs (tails aloft for balance instead of dragged on the ground).

But Bryan, you don't get credit just for having a picture of the pretty dinosaur, sweetheart. This is science class. You have to show that you understand about the dinosaur. If you say Fred Flintstone had one for a pet, I can't give you credit for that.

[Guest Keith]

Sure they would. It just depends on what criteria they were expected to defend. Trust you to come up with the "stupid lawyer trick" of immediately tossing out the specific criterion that I have mentioned.

But you're not speaking in absolute terms or anything. Right?

Hmmm. And here I thought we'd been over the fact that there is no "the" scientific method.

Some might say that ignoring the fact that there is no "the" scientific method is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence (though no doubt not in absolute terms!).

Is it? Do you know what "modernism" is? And would you therefore deny that any scientific inquiry took place prior to the advent of "modernism"? If not, then your statement would appear to serve little purpose.

You appear to now be conflating science and modernism. Science makes no value judgments. The museum exhibit you linked mentions neither science nor modernism, though it does talk about "the modern world"--but "modern world" is not necessarily talking about modernism. It most often simply means the contemporary world. And, when it comes to that, it seems fair to blame modernism, at least in part, for cultural changes such as changes in the traditional form of marriage and the popularization of euthanasia.

The slides you linked do not appear to have anything at all in them representing "God's word" as the unquestionable and absolute truth in every instance. It looks like you're just making that part up out of thin air. If you can refer us to a slide that would actually support that assertion then I recommend that you link it without delay.

That doesn't follow, since philosophy encompasses anti-reason positions. Anyhow, I've already explained that "Human reason" is Christianese for wrong thinking. Major branches of Christian theology teach that the mind of man is fallen and will therefore fail to use reason properly. So your argument is a non-starter.

Is that a fact? Or is it your claim?

If you expect charitable interpretation of your words, then get in the habit of offering it to others.

The shameful thing is your attempt to separate my narrow defense of the museum from its broader teachings.

Though your pathetic follow-up arguments do come in a close second.

One fact that remains indisputable is that Bryan is still a raging p***k! Thanks Bryan, it's comforting to know that some things never change.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

That's your problem, Bryan. You don't understand what the other side is saying.

Hmmm. And it has absolutely nothing to do with their choice of words?

The point is, you're making no effort to understand. Even after you know what was meant, all you do is criticize the other person for (in your eyes) not being clear. If you really wanted to understand or have a meaningful discussion, you would address what the other person is saying once you understood it.

The other thing you never do is support your argument. You just repeat it over and over and insist that you're right, and you consistently deflect every challenge and every honest question back on the person who asked it. You have a very bad habit of implying that other people are stupid or ill-informed, and then doing exactly what you accuse them of doing. So when you're challenged to explain how the Ignorance Emporium meets the criteria of science, you deflect the question just because it was put up as a reply to someone else, even though you know that it was directed to you. (See your post at 12:50 p.m. on June 22.) Maybe this is some sort of defense mechanism for you, but it's not going to persuade anyone to your point. Just the opposite, it is childish behavior that undermines anything useful you might be trying to say.

[Guest Guest]

Hmmm. And here I thought we'd been over the fact that there is no "the" scientific method. Some might say that ignoring the fact that there is no "the" scientific method is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence (though no doubt not in absolute terms!).

You stated your position, which is not the same thing as pointing out a fact. Fact is, there is a scientific method. Scientists may not agree on every detail but there is enough agreement that the scientific method is easily distinguished from what goes on in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium. Basically, the scientific method involves hypothesis, data collection and analysis, theory and reconsideration. The Ignorance Emporium deliberately ignores evidence that does not fit its preconceived conclusions, and exhibits no integrity of analysis. Even someone like Francis Collins would readily acknowledge that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an insult to science.

The order of steps in the scientific method can vary and the degree of rigor required can be a matter of legitimate dispute. But it is disingenuous for you to argue that there is no such thing, when every reputable scientist, philosopher and educator recognizes the distinction.

[Bryan]

QUOTE

That's your problem, Bryan. You don't understand what the other side is saying.

The point is, you're making no effort to understand.

Sure I am. The whole point of the Socratic method is to get the other person to put things in their own words and then use the questions to obtain clarification. It is those who try to refer to my questions as "statements" who provide the better evidence of not making the effort to understand.

Even after you know what was meant, all you do is criticize the other person for (in your eyes) not being clear.

Hold on, there. I don't know what was meant. I have your account, and you may or not be the same "Guest." And you could be lying to CYA. My point has been twofold. First, it doesn't much matter what was meant since backing away from absolutes reinforces my point that accusing the museum of being "anti-science" isn't so easy based on reason. The secondary point concerned the (absolute?) charge that I had leaped to assumptions. Again, I simply asked a question as to that issue, and the other side takes it as a statement of fact or something. The end result is the "Guest" contingent appears inconsistent.

If you really wanted to understand or have a meaningful discussion, you would address what the other person is saying once you understood it.

I don't necessarily understand what the other person is saying even up through this point, since the other person stays anonymous with a common username ("Guest"), and because you/they could be a liar. And in any event, I have already offered the appropriate response that would result if I took your account as absolutely accurate. It just weakens the case for calling the museum anti-science and leaves us to examine whatever probabilistic evidences are offered, hopefully better than I know anti-science when I see it.

The other thing you never do is support your argument.

What argument do you think I ought to be supporting? Am I not merely criticizing the case of those who claim the museum is "anti-science"? What claims do I need to support that have not been adequately supported?

You just repeat it over and over and insist that you're right, and you consistently deflect every challenge and every honest question back on the person who asked it.

Well, now you're just lying. But on the bright side, at least you're staying anonymous. Where have I insisted that I am right, please? And if you can come up with an honest question somebody has asked me, I'd appreciate an exact quotation.

You have a very bad habit of implying that other people are stupid or ill-informed, and then doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.

Like what?

So when you're challenged to explain how the Ignorance Emporium meets the criteria of science, you deflect the question just because it was put up as a reply to someone else, even though you know that it was directed to you. (See your post at 12:50 p.m. on June 22.)

Let's pretend for a moment that you have used that question as your example of an "honest" question. Since I have kept it my point to address charges that the museum is "anti-science" how am I to interpret the point of someone questioning me to explain how the creation museum meets the criteria of science? From where I sit, the question looks like an attempt to change the subject. Is a question intended to change the subject at the same time an "honest" question?

Maybe this is some sort of defense mechanism for you, but it's not going to persuade anyone to your point. Just the opposite, it is childish behavior that undermines anything useful you might be trying to say.

*Whew* That's a relief. For a moment I thought you were going to end your post without resorting to an overt personal attack.

[Bryan]

QUOTE (Guest @ Jun 21 2009, 11:17 PM) *

Bryan, perhaps it would be easier for you to explain how the "museum" meets the criteria of science. After all, it's easier to make an affirmative case than it is to prove a negative.

OK, so explain how the so-called Creation Museum meets scientific criteria.

From what I can see from the photographic evidence, the Creation Museum presents more than one view and does not make any claim to absolute accuracy.

Though this is off-topic from my point, which has been to defend the museum from the ambiguous charge that it is "anti-science." It should be obvious that the museum need not meet scientific criteria in order to avoid being termed "anti-science." Most atheists should be able to ably explain the distinction, since many of them are not anti-theists at the same time that they are atheists.

[Bryan]

Yes.

And you are able to specifically identify what I supposed missed, O Brave Anonymous "Guest"?

[Bryan]

Ah, Bryan, you're such a child. A fatalist wouldn't bother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Check behind you for that petard.

Why wouldn't a fatalist supposedly bother? That seems missing from your excellent Wikipedia citation.

Perhaps the petard you thought you detected behind me was a reflection of your, uh, past.

But I'm delighted to see that you uphold the fine "Guest" tradition of reliance on ad hominem. Keep up the fine work.

[Bryan]

But Bryan, you don't get credit just for having a picture of the pretty dinosaur, sweetheart.

No credit for reflecting contemporary scientific knowledge of dinosaurs in a pretty picture? Are you incredibly biased or what?

This is science class. You have to show that you understand about the dinosaur.

I just did that, but you ignored it. Tail aloft for balance. Remember? Or did your bias blot that out?

If you say Fred Flintstone had one for a pet, I can't give you credit for that.

That's fine, though I don't recall saying anything about Fred Flintstone. Any credit at all for the scientifically current pretty dinosaur picture?

[Bryan]

Hmmm. And here I thought we'd been over the fact that there is no "the" scientific method. Some might say that ignoring the fact that there is no "the" scientific method is an insult to anyone with even a little intelligence (though no doubt not in absolute terms!).

You stated your position, which is not the same thing as pointing out a fact. Fact is, there is a scientific method. Scientists may not agree on every detail but there is enough agreement that the scientific method is easily distinguished from what goes on in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium.

Excellent! Do it, then. You just said it was "easily" done. So do it. It's easy.

Basically, the scientific method involves hypothesis, data collection and analysis, theory and reconsideration. The Ignorance Emporium deliberately ignores evidence that does not fit its preconceived conclusions, and exhibits no integrity of analysis.

We know that is false from the linked photographs. How can you claim that evidence is "ignored" when the evolutionary account is presented side-by-side with the creation account? And if you charge the museum with an anti-science attitude for not including certain specifics that you think count in evolution's favor, then how can you consistently object to "balanced treatment" laws that seek to include evidence that poses difficult questions for evolutionary theory in science classrooms?

Even someone like Francis Collins would readily acknowledge that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an insult to science.

The museum may well be an insult to science, but unless you equate that with "anti-science" then I don't consider it relevant. And I don't take Collins' opinion on the matter as authoritative minus the justification.

The order of steps in the scientific method can vary and the degree of rigor required can be a matter of legitimate dispute. But it is disingenuous for you to argue that there is no such thing, when every reputable scientist, philosopher and educator recognizes the distinction.

Disingenuousness occurs when you present my statement that there is no "the" scientific method as the claim that there is no scientific method. Your reply implicitly supports me in my statement, yet you try to spin it as a contradiction.

That is something you must wear, brave "Guest."

[Guest Guest]

Your explanations are unsatisfactory, Bryan. You will never admit it, but the scientific method is recognized and applied throughout the scientific community all over the world. The “general principles of scientific method . . . pervade all of the sciences.” http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Pr...p;sr=1-5#reader , p. 1.

See also the following links, all of which allow you to read the opening few pages.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Scie...p;sr=1-1#reader

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-S...707&sr=1-12

http://www.amazon.com/Creepy-Crawlies-Scie...1707&sr=1-2

Here’s an interesting book from a chemistry professor in Virginia. Taking a radical approach, the author questions whether the scientific method truly drives day-to-day science but you will see nothing in this that would resemble anything in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium. http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Literacy-...707&sr=1-10

When science was less advanced than it is today, philosophy played a more significant role in it. See, for example, the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Theories-Scientific-...364&sr=1-59

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Scientifi...364&sr=1-52

http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Hi...113&sr=1-31

These books make for interesting reading, but few scientists concern themselves with these questions today. Today’s science is not what it was when Descartes, Newton and Hume were writing. We know far more than we did several centuries ago.

The Ignorance Emporium argues that the Bible is the authority, not that evidence is the authority. One of its posters says that the difference between it and science is that its starting point is “God’s word,” as contrasted with science, whose starting point is “human reason.” They neglect to mention that science is also based on evidence. That is why the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is anti-scienific.

The Ignorance Emporium starts from the conclusions, which are to be found in the Bible, and works its way backward to justify them. That’s just not how science works, no matter which view you take of its method. In science, you form your hypothesis and your theory from the evidence; you don’t start with your hypothesis and then use any means to justify it.

Here are some videos that explain it very well.

And here are some especially for 2dim, and anyone interested in abiogenesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istmAsWjFqc...feature=related