Testing Theories of Origins

Several people have asked that we close this debate and move on to debating the evidence. I wasn't ready to do that before, but I think I'm ready now.Reaching consensus was never my goal and probably not possible. I was hoping to debate the issues mainly to help me get clarity by having others challenge my thinking. I also wanted to get this debate on the record, so to speak, so visitors might be able to understand the issues better.If there are outstanding issues that any member feels I have neglected, please let me know and I will attempt to address your question. In the meantime, I am going to think through debating the evidence.Thanks to everyone who has participated.

I rejected the proposed test "acceptance by scientists" as circular reasoning that gives the status quo an unfair advantage. I do not know of any established scientist that would propose such a test. If you can find a citation of an established scientist saying that is a good test, I would be happy to read their reasoning but I don't think you will find one.Another proposed test was parsimony defined as the fewest assumptions. I agree that fewer assumptions is a good thing, but am not sure how this test would be applied. I am certainly willing to look at the arguments put forward on it.The two major tests are explanatory power and predictive success. BTW, predictive success is different from predictive power. As I understand it, predictive power means the ability of a theory or model to generate relevant predictions. Predictive success means the predictions turn out to be correct, a much tougher test.

Hi Blue Jay, I used the term "confirmatory power" to indicate that it is not a major test. "Indicatory power" is an interesting term. I don't disapprove of it, but I see it as the reverse side of confirmatory power. If no weakness is sensed, that is confirming. If weakness is sensed, then that's an indication to look closer. I would not automatically reject a model just because I sense weakness in it. I don't think a measure of consensus is necessarily stultification. Stultification is evident when there is fear of repercussions for questioning the consensus. Science is about being skeptical and questioning the status quo. If scientists do not feel free to do that, it is a very unhealthy situation. You cannot have free and open enquiry in that type of environment. If it isn't obvious, then I did not explain it well. I believe I pointed to YEC as an example of a lack of integration and said that was a weakness. YEC used to think their only problem was in geology and that problem was minor. But they were not considering other disciplines like astronomy and cosmology which also indicate the universe is very old. Integration simply means the model is considering data from all the relevant scientific disciplines. More data means more complexity, not less.

i know there are several people who want this thread to end so we can get to the evidence. There are also some who feel I have not responded to all the issues. I've done my best given the time allowed in my schedule. I never expected to achieve a consensus here, but hope to discuss the ideas and have my own thinking challenged. That has been accomplished and so I will attempt a summation. This sums up my own views only. You are free to write your own summation if you wish.As a precursor to debating a relatively recently proposed model of origins from Dr. Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, we have debated the proposed tests for evaluating a model of origins of the universe and life.Dr. Ross discusses four models: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and the RTB model of creation (Ross's model). He does not discuss Intelligent Design as a model because ID will never become specific enough to qualify as a model.The Major Tests
Explanatory Power - the best model is the one with the greatest explanatory power, the ability to explain all the data relevant to origins in all the different scientific disciplines.Predictive Success - the best model is the one with the greatest predictive success. Predictive success different from predictive power. Predictive power is the ability of a model to produce predictions. Predictive success is seeing those predictions confirmed within the next five years.Ross provides several tests to evaluate the quality and relevance of predictions.1. "Predictions must be detailed, distinctive and comprehensive to be of any use in evaluating a particular model."
2. Designing 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.
3. Finally, 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.The Minor Tests
Dr. Ross has proposed a series of five minor tests. Four of these have been used against young-earth creationism in the past. Destiny Implications appears to be new. As a general assessment, if they are to be used to evaluate one model, then is it fair to use them against all models. No special pleading allowed.Censorship - If one model is attempting to censor another model, this is an indication of weakness in the censoring model. It indicates its proponents are unwilling to compete in the open market place of ideas which is the scientific journals. (This test has nothing to do with public schools) If there is no censorship, this is a sign of strength.Stultification - If scientists are punished or feel threatened for taking a stance on origins or even questioning some of the evidence, then stultification is present and this is a sign of weakness. In the past, this has been used in the case of Galileo among others. Recent examples include Carolyn Crocker and Thomas Nagel, who are considered heretics against Darwinism. If there is no stultification, that is a strength that has confirmatory power. If it is present, that is a weakness that needs investigation.Integration - It is a sign of strength for a model to incorporate data from all of the relevant scientific disciplines. While I like this concept, and stated that it was my favorite among the minor tests, I now think it fits within the major test of Explanatory Power. I do not see a need for this as a separate test.Research Passion - Increased research passion is sign of strength for any model. While I believe research passion is a positive thing, I'm not convinced this is a great test. It seems to unfairly advantage any theory that happens to be new.Destiny Implications - This test asks how well does the model explain and satisfy the human drive to seek and achieve an ultimate hope, purpose and destiny? While I agree that purpose and destiny are important longings of the human heart, I am not sure this is a fair test. One reason is that it has not been used against young-earth creationists in the past and could not be. Ross knows this is a strength for his model, but I do not think he needs it. I am willing to abandon this test for the purposes of our future debates together.Other Proposed Tests
Acceptance by scientists - This test claims that acceptance by other scientists is a good way to evaluate a model. I disagree with this test. Perhaps this is acceptable for non-scientists, but we are looking for methods scientists can use. If scientists use themselves as a reference point, it is circular reasoning and would heavily favor the status quo. This is not a good test.Parsimony - This states the strongest model is the one with the fewest assumptions. I've not heard of this model before, but agree that fewer assumptions is a good thing. I'm interested to see how this test may be applied to the models of origins. I'm open to this test.Thanks to everyone for participating. You are now invited to join the debate in the "Is it Science?" forum titled "Can science say anything about a creator God?"