Talk:Science
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
Contents |
Operational vs Origins science
Many anticreationists choose not to differentiate between origins science and operational science. For example, evolutionist Richard Dawkins asking the rhetorical question 'How do we know that the earth is four and a half billion years old and that it orbits the sun that nourishes it?' The latter phrase, 'it [the earth] orbits the sun that nourishes it', is a statement of operational science. It is an inference from directly observed scientific data, taken according to Scientific method. It is operational science that is carried out in laboratories and in field work. Its results are reproducible and verifiable.
Actually, it cannot be shown by empiracle data that the earth actually moves with respect to the universe, please rephrase this paragraph.
-- RichardTTalk 16:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Title Change
I think this article could do well under the article title, Science, because:
- it describes science's historical context and the branches of science
- we have no science article yet;
- single-word titles are more elegent;
- a more general title would allow for expansion; Ungtss 16:26, 26 December 2005 (GMT)
Agreed. I have altered the title to Science.Mr. Ashcraft
Related topics
Note that there are 2 other pages related to this topic where a more expanded look a the history of science and science vs. religion can be discussed. --Chris Ashcraft 17:39, 26 December 2005 (GMT)
Operational and Origins Science
I thought it was worth adding a section entitled 'Operational and Origins Science', as this illustrates an important area of attack on creationism, and how such an attack can be undermined. I hope this is OK. --Paul Taylor 10:26, 09 February 2006 (GMT)
- Well done, Paul: I fleshed out our definitions of "origins" and "operational" a bit, but left the rest intact. Ungtss 12:58, 9 February 2006 (GMT)
Biological science
I stongly suggest to change the content of 'biological sciences' in 'the branches of science'. Studying the physical properties of matter is not straightforward at all (first paragraph): see any recent article on fundamental particles. Moreover, by what means is biology 'more descriptive' than other sciences (second paragraph)? Considering currently published articles in biology, hardly any is exclusively (nor largely) descriptive. nooijer
