All "Quotes" from article above in Green.
"Mr. Ham's core tactics: distinguishing between observational/experimental science and origins/historical science. His argument in this regard is that in order to construct a theory of origins, scientists have to make assumptions, and that these assumptions must, by necessity, move beyond the observable evidence.
And, as formulated above, it's certainly a valid statement. The current age of the universe, of the Earth, and of the various animal species located on it is calculated as ancient using a variety of assumptions, and these assumptions can not (and should not) be beyond question."
Where have we heard this before??
"...just because we are confident that we see light moving at a constant speed in labs on Earth doesn't necessarily mean that this assumption should never be called into question, nor that we should be completely unskeptical about its validity throughout the universe at large."
Not throughout the Universe @ Large, just in the past...and Specifically on Day 4.
"We can very easily embrace a viewpoint that science is a completely objective discipline, insulated from human subjectivity."
Well that's how it should be, but....
‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.
"All scientific investigations do require a set of assumptions, a worldview if you will, in order for them to be extended beyond the immediate observations into a viable scientific hypothesis, which is then tested against the evidence"
He's teetering on the Edge here. But I like this..."a viable scientific hypothesis, which is then tested" so, I give him a pass.
"The presence of this radiation in the universe was predicted by the Russian physicist George Gamow, based upon calculations of the expected energy left over from the big bang"
Gamow Predicted, eh? Went from teetering on the edge to OFF the Reservation......WRONG!!
'However, this nice story is undermined by the fact that later in the 1950s, Gamow and his students made a number of estimates of the background temperature ranging from 3 to 50 K.
More importantly, spectral analysis before Gamow had already found a 2.3 K background temperature. This means that it was known before the big bang, just as the expansion of the universe was, so they were not ‘predictions’ of the big bang at all!'
'Starting in 1937, Adams and Dunham had found some absorption lines, which were later identified with interstellar molecules CH, CH+ and CN.'
Dunham, T., Jr. and Adams, W.S., Publ. Am. Astron. Soc. 9:5, 1937
'So, in 1940/1, the Canadian astrophysicist and spectroscopist Andrew McKellar (1910–1960) could analyze the data. From the observed ratios of the populations of these energy states, he calculated that the CN molecules were in thermal equilibrium with a temperature of about 2.3 K.'
McKellar, A., Proc. Ast. Soc. Pac. 52:187, 1940; Publ. Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria B.C. 7(15):251, 1941
‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published .....New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). **Currently over 300 have signed up.**
‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.'
‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’
aka......"Just So" Stories or "Recovery Hypothesis"
Big Bangs Afterglow fails Intergalactic Shadow Test. Dr. Richard Lieu.... ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on.'
‘But you don’t see this fluctuation’, said Lieu. ‘There appear to be no lensing effects whatsoever.
Lieu, R. and Mitaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background, Astrophysical Journal 628:583, 2005.
".. and is a good example of the scientific flaws that can be seen in Ken Ham's approach to science."
He then tries to tie the failure of the Steady State Model to Ken Ham's "Approach To Science"....right out of the BLUE!! With a tie in to a Link from another article "Role of Consensus in Science" (I can't wait to review this!!!) Ok, the Gloves are OFF!!
"one of the weakest points of Mr. Ham's overall argument, because naturalism in science is not a religion: it is a methodological requirement. When you are conducting science, you simply must assume naturalism."
But evolution, big bang et al ARE RELIGIONS!! ....
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000
Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity.
Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524
Science = Knowledge..... to...... Science = Naturalistic Explanations of Knowledge only.
The Irony turns into a Full Blown Contradiction, How? Well "Naturalistic" explanations are Material....and Knowledge is SUPERNATURAL. You can't put Information >>>>> Knowledge >>>>>> or TRUTH in a Jar and Paint it RED. .......
It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, "a priori" excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it, all while refusing to acknowledge its Existence!!!!!
"The religious, young-Earth creationist inventor of the MRI Machine could not have done it if he did not assume natural causes in constructing it."
What in The World?? I think I know what he was trying to portray here (Current "fixed" Laws of Nature) but...this was just too funny.
"So what Ken Ham is really suggesting above is that public school science textbooks should teach that sometimes science just doesn't work."
No....what he was trying to suggest was to keep the stories/myths/fables out of Public Science Textbooks.
"In fact, the very notion that these natural laws were eternal began as a philosophical and theological stance!"
Natural Laws were Eternal?? He needs a Crash Course in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.....Quick!!
"Fundamentally, Ken Ham's argument is that science is wrong. And it's not just a little wrong. It's massively wrong."
Strawman. Ken Ham thinks (and justly so) that the Historical Sciences (Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, evolution, et al) are chalk full of Unverifiable/Unfalsifiable conjured Fairytales.
1. Any investigation in science requires adopting a stance of naturalism: that is, assuming that natural phenomena are caused by natural causes.
2. In addition, science investigating the past (which Ham calls "historical science" or "origins science") does require additional assumptions, because there are components of the investigation we cannot directly view.
3. One core assumption is that the laws of the universe are "eternal," or at the very least that any time-dependent variability can be discerned from the present state of the universe by scientific inquiry.
So what does it take for Ken Ham's creation science to be true? First, it requires that all three of the above are flawed, at least when it comes to investigating origins."
Each One has "ASSUMPTIONS" as a CORE TENET. The COUP DE GRAS.....
So Ya Think Ken has a CASE??
"If the Earth and the entire universe are only 6,000 years old, then independent assumptions from geology, astrophysics, cosmology, biology/zoology, atomic physics, and various other disciplines are wrong. It would seem like the whole enterprise of science is, in fact, fundamentally flawed!"
Now the Fallacy Parade: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, complete with some Elephant Hurling "cherry on top". Funny, he never talks about anything specific?
"Because, you see, these assumptions were not the product of a collaboration. They are not the results of a handful of scientists getting together and contriving a way to reach the result they wanted, but rather the product of the scientific community at large"
Now the Justification LOL. So because These "ASSUMPTIONS" are now a "Blind-folded" Collective, that denotes some Validity??
An equal statement would be......"Because, you see, these LIES were not the product of a collaboration." Are they still LIES??
"Where will you find scientists gathered together, creating elaborate arguments in an attempt to justify a pre-conceived conclusion?"
Ahhh yes, an appeal to "Sane" people who do not entertain for a moment any impropriety or dare I say "Conspiracy Theories".....
You mean that 2 or more people can get together to accomplish some Agenda??? Who ever heard of such Preposterousness!!!!!!!
"the steady state model would work, but few people are supporting that these days, since there's no evidence. No, today you could go to creationist groups like Answers in Genesis."
So another "Right out of the Blue" Juxtaposition between the Steady State Model and Answers in Genesis??? No Agenda Here
Lets Juxtaposition evolution with "Scientific Evidence" just for kicks, eh?? Lets try that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"As Bill Nye said, science is both the body of facts about nature and the method of obtaining and interpreting those facts."
Let's put one of Nye's so called "FACTS" into the "Scientific Method" then
"It is on this last point that the real scientific fail comes in Creation Science."
He must have attended the same "No True Scotsman" Fallacy School as Bill Nye.
"Interpreting the evidence with a pre-ordained conclusion is not, in any sense of the word, good scientific method"
You mean like evolution and the big bang??