It takes a creationist to pack so much wrong in so little space

[SidDithers]

From the most excellent PZ Myers at scienceblogs
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/22/it-takes-a-creationist-to-pack-so-much-wrong-in-so-little-space/?utm_source=widgets

Apparently, Martin Cothran believes that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, and that this unimaginably vast emptiness is evidence that a god created us. I don’t understand the logic, but then I don’t understand most of his weird leaps in this post on how life on other planets is like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

First, there is the naive scientific oversimplification.

We are told by many New Atheist scientists in particular (who like to mark their territory) that a belief can only be scientific if it is falsifiable. This is their demarcation criterion of choice and they use it to ruthlessly guard the borders of science. This is one of the reasons, they say, we must reject Intelligent Design. This idea comes generally from Karl Popper, a philosopher, who said that a theory cannot be considered scientific merely because it admits of possible verification, but only if it admits of possible falsification.

Oh, go away, Karl Popper. He seems to be the only philosopher of science the creationists have heard of. Falsification is one criterion; it’s part of a general effort to solve the demarcation problem, a problem I don’t think can be solved because the boundary between science and non-science is a grey murky haze. Personally, I think observation and evidence are more central to science than falsification.

How can a creationist even talk about applying falsification to science, though? They believe in so many things that have been falsified.

Sid

[longship]

1. Love PZ!

A daily visit to Pharyngula is mandatory, if not for the snark alone.

R&K

[SidDithers]

2. He's gotten away from these types of blog posts in the last little while...

and seems to be concentrating more on posts strictly about the wonders of biology.

Nice to see his smackdown here, tho.

Sid

[longship]

5. Yup! It even has a name. Naive falsification.

Regards.

[X_Digger]

3. I especially love this comment..

Creations think like lawyers, not scientists.

In their home waters, their arguments are based on disecting and interpreting the Bible, much the way a lawyer disects and interprets the law.

When they try to enter the realm of science they switch books, but not tactics. They comb science books looking for loop holes or trying to find some hook on which to hang an objection. They have know idea why this doesn't impress us.

[phantom power]

6. "They have no idea why this doesn't impress us"

Indeed.

One thing about creationists, or religious fundamentalists in general, is that they all seem to be obsessed with issues of infallibility. Their argumentation all rests on the notion that since scientists are known to be wrong about stuff, and/or disagree about stuff, then hey, it's all up for grabs.

It's why they are so in love with epistemological closure. It allows them to pretend their world view is infallible. And that ability to believe in infallibility is very very important to fundamentalists. It's totally unimportant to scientists. In fact, it's anathema to science.

They aren't ever going to come to terms with science. It rests on a totally incompatible value system.

[beerandjesus]

4. Karl Popper would HATE these guys

Talk about enemies of the open society....

[Vashta Nerada]

7. Sometimes, life would be so much easier if I were as stupid as a creationist.

I don't like taking the easy road though.