Google Groups

Science systematizations

The Psychedelic Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet Apr 14, 2007 9:28 PM
Posted in group: alt.disasters.earthquake
There are conserable limitations to what science can do in the area
evolutionary theory:

The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the

If something can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then
science can deal with it. But to expect science to investigate
something in the proverbial "sixth sense" is to demand too much of
scientific method, and lays it open to charges of abuse or misuse.

The scientific method is limited to the present. That science is
limited to the present should be a self-evident, axiomatic truth,
since the present is the only place and time in which the five senses
operate.  And.......that's how faults develop.

Science seeks to explain the behavior of that which is, and to check
its explanation by means of experiments. But this experimental
requirement can be met only in the present time. The past, and
especially the beginning of things, lies beyond the grasp of this
method, and so science can only speculate about the origin and
of the world .
To require science to make factual statements about pre-history is to
prostitute the method.

Since science is based upon observation, it must limit its scope to
human history, where things can be properly observed and recorded. In
recent years, there has been considerable disagreement between
creationists and evolutionists over whether or not science should be
limited to the present. Evolutionists have insisted on using science
in an attempt to study various aspects of their theory (e.g., the Big
Bang, the origin of the Solar System, etc.) that they freely admit
belong in "pre-history." Creationists have responded by suggesting
that such events are not observable, and therefore are not properly
within the domain of science. Yet there are certain things about both
evolution and creation that can be tested. In order to distinguish
things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot,
some authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two

operation science vs. origin science

Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that
require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.),
while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not
require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term
"origin science" may be new, but it operates by the standard
principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of causality
says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and
adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) states that
similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the kinds of
causes that we observe producing effects today can be counted on to
have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as an adequate
cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate cause in the
past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we assume to
have been an inadequate cause in the past.

The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
scientific manner.

Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any
possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily
false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted as
part of training

Thus, even defenders of evolutionary theory have admitted that their
theory is "outside of empirical science." Of course, evolutionists
have responded by suggesting that "creation is based on supernatural
processes in the past" and therefore is not scientific. However, the
"supernatural" beginnings of creation are no less available for
scientific examination than are the "prehistoric" (though allegedly
natural) beginnings of evolution. To the unbiased observer, that
seem to put creation and evolution on equal footing, scientifically

The scientific method is limited to telling us "how" a process works,
not "why."

The scientific method is incapable of dealing with the realm of
purpose. It can deal with cause and effect relationships; or as some
would say, it can deal with the succession of events in time. It
cannot deal with the "why" when one uses the term "why" with
to purpose.  Science deals with mechanism, not purpose. "Why"-in
regard to purpose-is not a question science is equipped to answer.

The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).

Science is ignorant of values.  There is nothing inherent in the
scientific method that provides for the definition or study of
It should be recognized that science is incapable of making value
judgments about the things it measures. Many men on the frontiers of
science are realizing that there is nothing inherent in science to
guide them in the application of the discoveries they make. There is
nothing in science itself which will determine whether nuclear energy
will be used to destroy cancer or to destroy cities. This is a
judgment outside the scientific method to determine.

This is not meant to imply that scientists work without morals or
values. It is simply to say that whatever morals or values they
possess were not derived from the scientific method. Science is not
equipped to deal with morals.
The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the
unique. The scientific method deals with those things that are: (a)
timeless; (b) universal; (c) dependable; and (d) repeatable. Those
things that do not fit in these categories are outside the realm of

One-time events on earth are outside of science.  The core of
scientific method or methods is experimental repeatability or
reproducibility.  The important distinction between science and those
other systematizations (the arts, philosophy, and theology) is that
science is self-testing and self-correcting. The testing and
correcting are done by means of observations that can be repeated
essentially the same results by normal persons operating by the same
methods and with the same approach.

This explains the limits of evolution as a science. Evolution can be
used as science in some areas. In other areas it is pseudoscience.
general it is just the stinky garbage of last night's party before
cleaning people have arrived.