I know, I know - 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron; or is it? I feel like I've been left out of the loop a bit because I just discovered that there really is such a thing as 'creation science'. I expect a lot of flack for even suggesting such a thing but I should point out that emotional reactions to any suggestion of validity to 'creation science' are really on par with the dogmatic rebuttals of theists.
Like all scientists, creation scientists start out with an hypothesis and then go out and test it. I guess the only difference is that they don't really have hypothesis 'b' (or c,d,e,f...) waiting in the wings like reality scientists. Where reality science can drop an hypothesis and move on, creation science needs to get more rigorous, to say the least.
It seems that creation scientists use classical mutlidimensional scaling to group fossils into baramins - a creationist version of evolutionary taxonomy. The multidimensional scaling identifies gaps in the fossil record that leave the remaining fossils in 'groups' they call baramins, which they say were created in exactly that form by a god. Interestingly, this is the most technical definition of a 'god of the gaps' I've ever encountered.
So, the topic to discuss here is; 'IF' creation scientists could actually prove their baramin hypothesis AND reality scientists couldn't falsify it, would you be prepared to accept/admit that macro-evolution did NOT actually occur?
I have this rather big blog I was about to post debunking 'Mysterious Origins of Man', a 'documentary' that attempts to show a lot of scientific bias. The actual evidence they use is all very well debunked already, so it's just a matter of collating all that information as a case against the tv program - except for Hueyatlaco, but they greatly misrepresented what went on there so I can work with that.
I need to rewrite a big part of the intro now, however. I had 'discredited' Michael Cremo and Robert Taylor purely on the grounds that they were Hindu Creationists. Seeing how fallacious it truly is to discount someone's research based on a single aspect of their personal philosophy I need to get out of the habit of doing that. I'm amazed at how quickly everything Senter had done was discredited here based exclusively on the premise he was a creationist - even though he was proving evolution.
If anyone used scientific methodology, with valid data and was published in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication, I would seriously take it under consideration.
But that isn't true. This scientist used scientific methodology with valid data and published his findings in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication and you 100% rejected any validity of his study because you thought he was a creationist. Sorry to say, but your claims do not hold up to the evidence at hand.
Now you go on with an unwavering definition of how creationists go about their work, but you've already proven you are too bigoted to even read the findings of someone you think might be a creationist - so I must ask, is your definition formed on evidence or just dogmatic opinion? I'm sorry, that question was already answered in the previous paragraph.
So I guess I have no more questions.
Well all I ever hear about it is that they totally fabricate everything. I was amazed to find that they were actually using valid statistical methods for analyzing evidence.