Testing Theories of Origins

Perhaps I should have worded my original statement slightly differently so that it stated no new large mammals have appeared since man.

This is why we need to wait for that debate. I do not want to get into the evidence yet. The tests needs to be judged on their own prior to examining the evidence. If we are judging the tests based on whether we think our evidence will win out or not, then we are not getting an honest assessment of the tests.So far this is what I'm hearing (in quotes) along with my short response:1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about. The test is about publishing the evidence so it can be examined and debated. There is lots of science published that turns out to be bad science and is ultimately rejected. Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating. The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.I think this test has confirmatory power.2. "Stultification is not a good test because it only applies to religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question. It cannot possibly apply to our model."No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.This test has confirmatory power.3. "Integration is a good test for young-earth creationism but there is no evidence it is a good general test."Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests. The early conditions of the universe were very special and could not have come about by random chance. The one-time only, low entropy Big Bang has implications for any model of origins. So also, do the hundreds of examples of the fine-tuned universe.This test has confirmatory power.4. "Research passion is not a good test because it results only from removing religious stultification."Again, this is an attempt to judge the test based on the evidence. The test needs to be judged on its own prior to examining the evidence. An increase in research passion is a plus in my view.I view this test as having confirmatory power.5. "How is Destiny Implications a valid test?"Actually, I'm not certain it is. This appears to be a new test. It also appears to favor the RTB Creation Model right off the bat. However, it also has some aspects that are similar to some of the other tests. Naturalism has a difficult time with purpose, meaning, and even consciousness. The RTB Creation Model may be able to explain these much better than the evolutionary model but that seems to fall within the realm of Explanatory Power.I'm not sure this test is needed and I'm not sure it can be equally applied to all models as the others can.

Regarding my comment that Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying, you write: Ample evidence exists that people are punished for simply questioning evidence for Darwinism. Did you happen to watch the Ben Stein documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?" There were several stories of intimidation and punishment for anyone who publicly questioned Darwinian theory. Dr. Carolyn Crocker was one in the movie who did not have her teaching contract renewed. She now runs and organization called American Institute for Science and Technology Education. One of the pages of her website lists a number of teaching and professional scientists who publicly support her organization, AITSE. But it also has this statement."AITSE would also like to acknowledge and thank the various PhD and MD scientists who serve as consultants for us, but cannot have their names published for fear of professional and academic repercussions. To date these include a molecular biologist, an immunologist, a biochemist, a microbiologist, two pharmaceutical scientists, two computer scientists, various medical school professors and two surgeons."Evidence for people getting in trouble because of Darwinian orthodoxy is pretty common. Some people are even upset that Koonin is claiming that Darwin's Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) idea is false. Koonin says genomics tell us there is no "tree of life" so we should be talking about a "forest of life." Richard Dawkins is not at all happy these ideas were published in the literature. I saw a video clip of a panel talking about science and Craig Ventner expressed his support for this view and Dawkins was just shocked. Ventner would not even discuss the evidence with him. I think Koonin and Ventner's careers are safe, but you can see the emotionalism that erupts when anyone doubts a tenet of Darwinian faith, even when there is strong evidence against it.Another example of stultification is the recent persecution Thomas Nagel is suffering. Nagel is an atheist but he has come out against Darwinism and been branded a heretic for his views. You can read about it in The Weekly Standard and National Post.Edited by designtheorist, : Added the Thomas Nagel persecution

Thank you for a clear statement of your views. Yes, you understand correctly. Ross is taking tests used against YEC and saying they should be applied to all models. I agree with Ross that if they are to be applied, it cannot be done unidirectionally. Science is supposed to be unbiased.i agree with you that the two major tests are the ones that really matter. The minor tests are merely confirmatory. If one model outperforms all other models on the five minor tests and underperforms on the two major tests, then the model that wins on the major tests should be embraced.

Ross argues that Christianity developed the scientific method. This is actually an interesting topic that deserves its own debate. Briefly, (and from memory) it is because of certain statements in the Bible show God put order in the universe that caused men to seek to understand that order.In was Ross's science training that caused him to become a Christian. While Ross grew up an atheist, he became convinced God existed because of the Big Bang. So he started searching the holy books of the great religions to find which one was from God. He figured that if the book contained any factually inaccurate science information, then the book was written by men and not from God. He read the Hindu scripture first and found the claim that people lived on the surface of the Sun. He put that down and picked up a Buddhist book. Soon he put that down. When he came to the Bible he found a number of testable statements and they all were proven accurate. That's why he became a Christian.

I made the claim that evolutionary biologists often point to the Scopes Trial as evidence the creationists knew their viewpoint was losing - which is why they passed a law and tried to silence the science teacher. I think this is pretty well established.Science debates are typically conducted in the science literature. Someone writes a paper and another writes a response. The original author writes a reply and the critic writes a rejoinder. But this type of debate within the scientific literature is not happening because the Darwinian priests are afraid of a public scientific debate.Yes, I am the same poster. Either I forgot my password or something happened to prevent me from logging on. I tried the "Forgot password" link but nothing worked so I registered for a new account.

I can see we need to discuss the two major tests in more detail, which I will have to do later. Yes, Ross claims it is true. Ross claims to have made predictions in the past which have come true. Just because you and I were not aware of the predictions at the time, does not mean he did not make them. And he has made another series of five-year predictions published in his 2009 book. So it is nearly time to check the scorecard.

Thank you for your comment. I agree that heuristic is an interesting concept in this context. When I see evidence of censorship or stultification, it is an indication of weakness. It is like a pointer: "Dig here. Find out why they are afraid to debate the issues in the literature." However, we do disagree on some other issues.I think that if a test or heuristic is going to be used to assess one model, then every model should be assessed the same way. Do you disagree?I don't think endosymbiosis or lateral gene transfer are contrary to Darwinism in any way. So Darwinism has not "yielded" at all. Darwinism yielded to neo-Darwinism decades ago and is yielding now to "Darwinism in the light of genomics" but the yielding is not without pain. Richard Dawkins is still in denial.I think you have misunderstood the integration test. The idea is not simplification at all. And it will not damage explanatory power but rather enhance it. Scientists need to be aware of the work being done in other fields. When they are, they are more aware of the need to explain facts outside their normal discipline.I see research passion as a positive outcome but probably not a great indicator of the best model. Darwinism engendered a great deal of research passion in the 19th century. Research passion may be a better test of the newest model... a better indicator of a fad. But perhaps I misunderstand this test.

I don't think we are quite ready for that yet. We have spent most of our time discussing the minor tests. I did not think we would have any real disagreement on the major tests, but it appears we do.I will try to develop a more complete explanation of the two major tests and how they are to be applied. For now, it is important to realize that explanatory power is about explaining the data we currently have and predictive success is about making predictions about the data we will be discovering. Einstein's theory was successful because it made predictions that were later confirmed by observation. If a prediction is not related to the future, then it is not a prediction.Ross published a series of predictions in his 2009 book. He claims to have made a number of predictions before that also and he claims his predictions did well. I have not had time to evaluate those claims as yet.

I agree that fewer assumptions are better than more. Can you think of any examples were this was used as a test in evaluating models or theories?

I saw the Ventner/Dawkins exchange on a youtube clip of the ASU Origins Symposium. I forget the year but think it was 2010. The other panel members included Paul Davies, a guy from NASA who agreed with Dawkins, and a couple of Nobel laureates whose names escape me and Lawrence Krauss who hosted the event. I have looked for the clip so I could give you a link but without success.The Koonin paper can be found here. Ventner has not published on the topic but is obviously aware of the same data as Koonin.

I'm saying that Darwin does not accept the recent rejection of Darwin's LUCA. Koonin published on this. Ventner is obviously aware of the same genomic data and has reached the same conclusions as Koonin.

To get us started, here are some links.Explanatory PowerPredictive PowerPerhaps these are not great articles but they get us started. I think a theory or model has the greatest explanatory power when it can explain the greatest number of important facts from a variety of scientific disciplines and shows the greatest number of causal relationships.Dr. Ross writes:"Predictions must be detailed, distinctive and comprehensive to be of any use in evaluating a particular model. When predictions are so vague that the proponent of a particular model runs no risk of being wrong, they are virtually worthless. P. 233Designing predictions to show a difference with respect to competing models permits comparisons. Predictions unique to one model and contrary to all other models hold the greatest promise for furthering understanding of specific creation/evolution issues. P. 233Finally, a set of predictions must be comprehensive enough to address all (or nearly all) the major relevant issues. While no model can hope to explain everything (human knowledge will always remain finite), a good creation/evolution model needs to provide explanations for already observed relevant phenomena. As such, the model should produce predictions about what researchers will discover as they continue to study the broad array of creation/evolution disciplines. P. 233.

Oops. I meant Dawkins does not accept the recent rejection of Darwin's LUCA and the tree of life.Thank you for finding the video clip for me.Koonin has written more than one article on the topic. His view is catching on because it has good science behind it. Yes, there are some who have not accepted the new view yet but most people are not even aware of it.

Percy,
Thank you for that succinct summation. I agree. I think perhaps now we are ready to discuss the evidence. But I will need a little time to formulate this... perhaps a few days.