# Creationists: Strut Your Stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2000, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827 "2000-03-11T20:01:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/341 "2000-03-20T08:32:00Z")
In Adam’s defense, I don’t think it’s terribly fair for you to say this, David: > [@](#): > > No, you shouldn’t be surprised because there is no such thing as a “creationist theory” using the proper scientific meaning of the word. If you look back over the past few pages of this thread, there are dozens of examples of people in the evolutionist camp slinging around the word “theory” when they should have said “hypothesis”. For example, JonF: > [@](#): > > There are many theories about the nature of this “missing matter”. None of the theories are sufficiently well tested and understood to be accepted as truth by the majority of scientists. Just trying to be fair. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/342 "2000-03-20T11:21:00Z")
**Jab1 wrote:** > [@](#): > > If your evidence stands up to close scrutiny, you will have validated your belief (or hypothesis) and elevated it to scientific theory. “Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent [religious] experiences in any way ‘inferior’ to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence — the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion — to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.” V. S. Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain [Phantoms in the Brain](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688172172/o/qid=953551235/sr=8-2/103-8508663-5530221) **David B. wrote:** > [@](#): > > I do, however, think that somebody should at least be familiar with the scientific method, which CalifBoomer clearly is not. "Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists "The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient. "One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated. "Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench. “Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.” William McComas [Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know](http://www.coe.drexel.edu/CAE/AED2_954/TenMyths.html) ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/343 "2000-03-20T11:54:00Z")
Holly: > [@](#): > > there are dozens of examples of people in the evolutionist camp slinging around the word “theory” when they should have said “hypothesis”. Yes, perhaps I should have said hypothesis. I don’t think that has any bearing on the thrust of my argument. Libertarions: > [@](#): > > The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research > scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science … OK, I’ll grant you that much, maybe even most, scientific resarch fdoes not follow the so-called “classical scientific method”. What’s your point? Are you arguing that naythong that is named as science is _ipso facto_ science? jrf ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/344 "2000-03-20T12:45:00Z")
No; I didn’t mean to criticize you or your argument. The word “theory” has two distinct meanings. One can tell from the context which meaning is meant. As has been pointed out before, it’s a common Creationist tactic to say, “Evolution is only a theory”. I’m just being nitpicky at David. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Fillet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/2acd7d/32.png) [@Fillet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fillet)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/345 "2000-03-20T20:34:00Z")
**jab1** said: > [@](#): > > On another thread, I posted a link to a Creationist website: [www.creation-answers.com/time4.htm](http://www.creation-answers.com/time4.htm) The writer cites evidence that the Earth used rotate faster in the past, by counting the rings in fossil coral. {snip} I posted a correction to the origin of length-of-day estimates for the Precambrian in the same [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000222-2.html). With respect to **Libertarian’s** above post about the ten myths of science: My first thought, when I read the article, was that the author could not possibly be involved directly in day-to-day research in the physical sciences, else he would not have been so dismissive of a fundamental way to approach science THAT ACTUALLY WORKS. I then discovered that the author, Dr. William F. McComas, is indeed not a scientist but a pedagogist; he is the director of the [Center to Advance Science Education](http://www.usc.edu./dept/education/science-edu/indexold.html) at USC. (BTW, the article was published in a journal devoted to science and math pedagogy at the high school level.) He is apparently much decorated in his field, but I submit to you that he is one of those well-meaning folks who observes at a distance, and thus doesn’t really understand what it’s like to actually perform science. His perspective comes a little too close for my taste to that post-modernist “everything is subjective” crap that gets flung around with unbelievable ease in the social sciences. Yes, creativity of thought plays an _extremely_ important role in the conduct of science. So does serendipity. Plus, I don’t recall anyone ever saying that any ideas ever conceived of outside of the framework of the scientific method were automatically invalid. However, once I’ve had my brilliant thought about how to develop a grand unified theory of everything, I still have to take certain steps to convince my fellow scientists of the worthiness of my thought by: 1) gathering data, 2) formulating a formal hypothesis, and 3) testing the hypothesis. If I don’t take those steps, my proposals don’t get funded (i.e., the review panel will assume that I have no idea how to properly conduct research). If I don’t take those steps, I don’t get my papers published in peer-reviewed journals (at least those that are worth a damn). Since scientists are people too (imagine that!), there surely are cases in which scientists may not operate in complete objectivity. I’m privy to a particular case of that right now. However, the “scientific method” at least provides a guideline for conducting research in the most objective way possible. If someone is truly conducting research in a largely subjective fashion, that body of work will be exposed for what it is (poor science) in relatively short order. Just what are you suggesting, Lib, by citing this article in response to one of David B’s comments about the scientific method? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/346 "2000-03-20T22:17:00Z")
**Fillet wrote:** > [@](#): > > I then discovered that the author, Dr. William F. McComas, is indeed **not a scientist but a pedagogist** ; he is the director of the Center to Advance Science Education at USC. [shiver…] That’s a bit like saying, “I found out he wasn’t a doctor but a dermatologist.” **JonF wrote:** > [@](#): > > What’s your point? Are you arguing that naythong [anything? nothing?] that is named as science is ipso facto science? And **Fillet wrote:** > [@](#): > > Just what are you suggesting, Lib, by citing this article in response to one of David B’s comments about the scientific method? Nothing, except that the “scientific method” is not the holy grail of science. Discovery is. And discovery _often_ happens by mistake and chance. The scientific method is like deductive logic, useless for inspiring us, but useful for documenting our inspirations. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/347 "2000-03-20T22:43:00Z")
How I fixed my farm truck Truck was blowing fuses at night. I used a couple of fuses and saw that the problem only occured when the interior accessory lights were adjusted to bright. I hypothesized that there might be a short in one of the accessory light wires. In turn, I disconnected the power from each accessory until I no was no longer blowing fuses. I reconnected the rest of the accessory lights excepting the one at which fuses stopped blowing. Fuses were no longer blowing. This was proof that there was only one short. I traced the wire from that accessory light and found that the ground wire had fouled with the power wire to the cigarette lighter. I fixed it the short. Elapsed time: about 8 minutes. While I did not deliberately use the scientific method, it is what I did. I am quite sure scientist don’t whip out a crib card to make sure they don’t forget a step. This doesn’t mean that they are not following the method. THe term “scientific method” is descriptive of what careful people do while attempting to solve a problem. It is by no means the “10 commandments of science” ---
**Author:** ![Fillet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/2acd7d/32.png) [@Fillet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fillet)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/348 "2000-03-20T22:51:00Z")
Lib, OK, I could have expressed myself better. What I meant was that Dr. McComas teaches others how to teach science & what it is, but he has apparently no personal experience in the conduct of scientific research in the physical sciences (which are a completely different ball of wax from social sciences). That’s no better than trying to learn programming from someone who read all the books but never actually hacked their own code. BTW, there are, in practice, numerous scientists whose daily tasks & responsibilities do not include teaching, so scientist does not automatically = pedagogist. You also said: > [@](#): > > Nothing, except that the “scientific method” is not the holy grail of science. Discovery is. And discovery often happens by mistake and chance. The scientific method is like deductive logic, useless for inspiring us, but useful for documenting our inspirations. There’s no such thing as a holy grail of science. Nor is the scientific method an end unto itself. You’ll note that I said earlier: > [@](#): > > Yes, creativity of thought plays an extremely important role in the conduct of science. So does serendipity. Plus, I don’t recall anyone ever saying that any ideas ever conceived of outside of the framework of the scientific method were automatically invalid. However, once I’ve had my brilliant thought about how to develop a grand unified theory of everything, I still have to take certain steps to convince my fellow scientists of the worthiness of my thought by: 1) gathering data, 2) formulating a formal hypothesis, and 3) testing the hypothesis. Discovery is wonderful. Discovery is fantastic. It’s a marvelous feeling when you come to a realization that you’d never had before, or when you find that no one else has ever before noticed the things you have. I’m all in favor of trying to infuse this spirit into people who are learning about science. But the brutal truth of the matter is that not every day is a “Eureka!” sort of day, with discoveries popping up everywhere. Much of the advancement of science requires long hours of intense & often dull labor before one can demonstrate that that wonderful insight that hit like a ton of bricks actually has some basis which others can test for themselves. This is the level at which the scientific method performs an invaluable service by giving everyone a common framework in which to assess ideas. It is also _extremely_ important that people are taught that scientific research is conducted in as objective a manner as possible, and that scientists don’t pull results and interpretations out of their derrieres. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/349 "2000-03-20T22:54:00Z")
Exactly, **Scylla** > [@](#): > > I hypothesized that there might be a short in one of the accessory light wires. _That_ was your inspiration. What you did following that was merely to prove your inspiration was right. But if you had taken analogous steps with a bogus hypothesis, your fuses would still be blowing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/350 "2000-03-20T23:02:00Z")
**Fillet** [qote]It is also extremely important that people are taught that scientific research is conducted in as objective a manner as possible, and that scientists don’t pull results and interpretations out of their derrieres. [/quote] Yes, you are right, of course. That said, it is also extremely important that people are taught that scientific discovery can be subjectively inspired (as in Einstein’s famous thought experiments), and that the purpose of the scientific method is to _document_ your discoveries. What you don’t want, I presume you you would agree, is students who close their minds to all inspiration, thinking that they can _derive_ discoveries by following certain steps. A logical deduction has never led to any new truth, but has always simply proved an hypothesis first assumed. I just don’t want kids thinking that science will do their work _for_ them if they will just paint by the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Fillet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/2acd7d/32.png) [@Fillet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fillet)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/351 "2000-03-21T01:12:00Z")
**Lib** said: > [@](#): > > What you don’t want, I presume you you would agree, is students who close their minds to all inspiration, thinking that they can derive discoveries by following certain steps. A logical deduction has never led to any new truth, but has always simply proved an hypothesis first assumed. > > I just don’t want kids thinking that science will do their work for them if they will just paint by the numbers. On these points I couldn’t agree with you more! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/352 "2000-03-21T01:44:00Z")
Lib: At least in my particular example I am afraid that inspiration had nothing to do with it. I understand that there are only a few explanations for why a fuse can blow: 1. A short (most common) 2. Wrong type fuse, or defective fuse (repeated failures disproved this) 3. Too much juice in the circuit (most frequently due to improperly installed user modifications, none of which I had) 4. The Creationist view: God didn’t want the interior lights in my truck to work so he blew the fuse(impossible to prove false.) No inspiration recquired I remain open to the possibility of the inspiration divine or otherwise. A more likely explanation for the motive force behind “THe Divine Wind” is a rapid but subconscious consideration and sorting of the possibilities, synonymous with “intuition” “gut-feeling,” “hunch,” and “lucky guess.” ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/353 "2000-03-21T03:14:00Z")
sean uk wrote: > [@](#): > > Why are Black people Black? Yes i know Melanin (forgive me if i’ve mispelled this, can’t remember of the top of my head) protects against skin cancer and so is an advantageous adaptation. > But what about the drawback? Black is the best absorber of heat, which is a problem > in a blazing hot African climate. It’s not just skin cancer melanin protects against, it’s also sunburn. Plus, being darker in color would allow a hunter to sneak up on his prey more effectively at night, and make him family more difficult for other night predators to pick out. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/354 "2000-03-21T03:15:00Z")
Er, **his** family, not “him family”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/355 "2000-03-21T17:50:00Z")
The Divine Wind? Hmm. Well, I really hadn’t even thought of any sort of mystical inspiration. (Recall that I gave Einstein’s thought experiments as an example.) I meant simply inspiration of the mundane sort; that is, the occurence of a first idea, or postulate — in your case, the mental list of things that it might be. It was after a review of your hunches that you used a sort of scientific method to zero in. Your inspiration could have come from _any_ source. You could have seen a cloud shpaed like a cigarette lighter, for that matter. I think the scientific method is a lot like the process of writing code. Yes, you follow a basic series of common sense steps: think of something; code it; try it; revise it… But it’s that first step, that “think of something” that seperates the women from the girls. ---
**Author:** ![sean\_uk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@sean\_uk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sean_uk)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/356 "2000-03-22T20:44:00Z")
* * * I posted the Question? Why are Black people Black? Yes i know Melanin (forgive me if i’ve mispelled this, can’t remember of the top of my head) protects against skin cancer and so is an advantageous adaptation. But what about the drawback? Black is the best absorber of heat, which is a problem in a blazing hot African climate. Tracer replied quote: ## It’s not just skin cancer melanin protects against, it’s also sunburn. Plus, being darker in color would allow a hunter to sneak up on his prey more effectively at night, and make him family more difficult for other night predators to pick out. Ok, but surely the main problem with sunburn is that it causes cancers long term, which brings me back to the difference between long and short term disadvantages.Granted theres also Heatstroke , but is this a function of dehydration or sunburn? I’m not sure.If the former then my point still stands. As to your second point i have to say i don’t find it convincing. Surely ‘modern primitive’ tribes (if you’ll forgive the expression) like the Masai hunt during the day?Humans aren’t adapted for night hunting,our senses are to poor.Hard to track properly at Midnight. Not to mention they could find themselves being hunted by better adapted night Predators. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/357 "2000-03-22T21:58:00Z")
sean uk wrote: > [@](#): > > Surely ‘modern primitive’ tribes (if you’ll forgive the expression) like the Masai hunt during the day? Humans aren’t adapted for night hunting,our senses are to poor.Hard to track properly at Midnight. Not to mention they could find themselves being hunted by better adapted night Predators. Point taken. Darker skin probably wouldn’t help us hunt. However, my point about darker skin providing better camouflage against those “better adapted night predators” still stands. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/358 "2000-03-22T22:01:00Z")
Oh! Wait! We MIGHT still be able to hunt under moonlight – in which case, a darker skin COULD help us. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/359 "2000-03-23T12:53:00Z")
And still no creationist has posted any decent scientific evidence to back his claims… ---
**Author:** ![DaphyDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@DaphyDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaphyDuck)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/360 "2000-03-23T13:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by David B: > And still no creationist has posted any decent scientific evidence to back his claims… [sarcasm] scientific evidence, what would that prove? [/sarcasm] hehe. * * * ## [Nessie Lives!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001553.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827.md?page=19)