Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Science Works


For those not familiar with it, be sure to visit this site. At the bottom of the homepage there are links to various chapters. They are all worth a look, but be sure to check out the chapter on evolution. (I also loved the tables and charts, especially the geologic ages and events chart.)

From the site:

What is Science?
Put most simply, science is a way of dealing with the world around us. It is a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible jargon. It is a way of obtaining fat government grants…

The following I found particularly applicable to Darwinian science:

The Scientific Method
The cornerstone of modern science is the scientific method. Scientists first formulate hypotheses, or predictions, about nature. Then they perform experiments to test their hypotheses. There are two forms of the scientific method, the inductive and the deductive.

1) Formulate hypothesis
2) Apply for grant
3) Perform experiments or gather data to test hypothesis
4) Alter data to fit hypothesis
5) Publish

1) Formulate hypothesis
2) Apply for grant
3) Perform experiments or gather data to test hypothesis
4) Revise hypothesis to fit data
5) Backdate revised hypothesis
6) Publish

As part of this thread in regards to scientific integrity I offer the following: Eric J. Lerner in "Bucking the Big Bang" (New Scientist, May 22, 2004 p.20) "...the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation... in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model...Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committes that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang." I guess it's all about the money !!!!! emwitek
As an example of how Darwinian science works, consider two examples: INDUCTIVE Spend 150 years digging up fossils with the explicit goal of verifying a conclusion that has already been reached (incremental Darwinian gradualism). When the overwhelming and persistent evidence is that new species appear suddenly and remain virtually unchanged until they go extinct (or remain to this day, like the shark and horseshoe crab), find a few speculative examples that can be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis (even though there is no way to establish ancestor/descendent relationships), and declare that the evidence supports the hypothesis. DEDUCTIVE Hypothesize that Darwinian processes would have produced junk DNA. When junk DNA turns out not to be junk, declare that the theory never predicted it would be. GilDodgen
Apparently, the Darwinists seem to think the joke is on us. See here. Of course, they seem to forget that ID is not the same as creationism. professorsmith
Borne: "not drinking toxic beverages" They would if they could :D mike1962
If you look at the rest of the site, it seems to be an attempt at humor. One thing that has struck me on more than one occasion lately is that much that the Intelligent Design movement produces looks like what mainstream scientists would call attempts at humor. If you are trying to get the message out that ID is a joke, this is certainly one way of going about it! ReligionProf
Gotta love the early amphibians. Hey, it's as good as anything folks have come up with yet! :) Eric Anderson
Amazingly accurate as to the scientific method! One error on the evolution page of course is that primates descended from man, not the inverse, and are thus the more advanced. That's how nefarious mutations (the majority) and natural selection works. But primates, while having devolved from man, are actually much better adapted than man... for tree climbing, fun romping, tail-hanging, not inventing killing or torture machines, not aborting their own young, not inventing smoking of weeds, not drinking toxic beverages, etc. etc. that is. IOW, Man is devolving from primates and is actually devolving into a virus (many believe this has already occurred in spite of morphological set backs). I'm pretty sure I can prove this. (the way Darwinists prove things of course) How's that for using Darwinian style hypothesizing? I ought to be able to grab a few grants for this. ;-) Borne
sorry that was for #3 Berceuse
Re #2: Like Dawkins? Berceuse
For giving away our secrets, the author of that website has just been volunteered for a Phase Zero clinical trial. And he didn't even realise there were Phase Zero clinical trials. Bob Bob O'H
This is how our tax dollars are spent? Why is our President continuing to spend trillions of dollars funding these dishonest scientists. Cancel Science! Today!
I believe the post office is poorly run. It doesn't logically follow that I want to "cancel letter writing! Today!" A little skepticism aimed at the people who run science would be a good thing. russ
Nochange's reply, sincere or in jest, seems to me a predictable one if this isn't put into a larger context of a debate on the shortcomings of the current scientific system, as for example elborated on by Frank Tipler in Uncommon Descent (2004, for the average reader. Ben Z
This is how our tax dollars are spent? Why is our President continuing to spend trillions of dollars funding these dishonest scientists. Cancel Science! Today! Nochange

Leave a Reply