Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 8:37 AM
360 online now:
Aussie, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, ProtoTypical, Tangle (8 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,751 Year: 27,357/21,208 Month: 1,270/1,714 Week: 113/365 Day: 17/52 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 1 of 143 (694362)
03-21-2013 9:23 PM


Dr. Hugh Ross has written a book titled “More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation.” In the book, he outlines a number of predictions for each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (Ross’s model).

Ross writes: “Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. “ p.255

I view these tests (especially explanatory power and predictive success) as adequate tests. If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the model with the most explanatory power and predictive success.

What do you say?

This thread probably belongs in Is It Science?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 03-21-2013 10:43 PM designtheorist has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 143 (694363)
03-21-2013 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
03-21-2013 9:23 PM


More Details
I suggest that you add significant more details (in your own words) before this is released.

You should realize that it is unlikely that anyone has any new arguments that haven't been dealt with before.

If you want people to put some effort into what you propose you'll have to show you are willing to put some effort in too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 03-21-2013 9:23 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by designtheorist, posted 03-22-2013 12:02 AM AdminNosy has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 3 of 143 (694364)
03-22-2013 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
03-21-2013 10:43 PM


Re: More Details
Could you be more specific? What type of details are you looking for?

The issue in the past has always been that intelligent design and creation science are not real theories because they do not explain anything or successfully predict anything. What Hugh Ross has shown in his new book is that his relatively new theory does have explanatory power and has made successful predictions.

The debate I'm proposing is not about the evidence for these different theories, it is about the ground rules. I am arguing that scientists should choose the theory with the most explanatory power and predictive success. Will anyone pick up the debate and disagree? I don't know. But if they want to disagree, they should do it prior to the debate on the evidence about explanatory power and predictive success.

Does that explain it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 03-21-2013 10:43 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 1:29 AM designtheorist has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 143 (694365)
03-22-2013 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by designtheorist
03-22-2013 12:02 AM


Details
Do you think there will be any argument about picking what has the best explanatory power?

Can you give a hint of what you might expect someone to bring up?

Maybe it is just me but it is so obvious that I don't imagine there will be any debate.

If that is all you wish to discuss it seems hardly necessary to even mention Hugh Ross's book.

However you also mention:
five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications.

Again maybe it is just me but perhaps you should explain those terms and why you mention them. Myself, I don't have a clue as to what they mean. Or you could just remove them and see if there could actually be argument about picking a theory based on explanatory power and predictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by designtheorist, posted 03-22-2013 12:02 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by designtheorist, posted 03-22-2013 10:23 AM AdminNosy has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 5 of 143 (694366)
03-22-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
03-22-2013 1:29 AM


Re: Details
Do you think there will be any argument about picking what has the best explanatory power?

Yes, there most certainly will be a debate on that, but that debate is for later. I want to establish the ground rules first.

Can you give a hint of what you might expect someone to bring up?

I gave five hints - the five other tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. In my opinion, these tests provide confirmation of the major tests but nothing more. If a theory passed all five of these but did not pass the first two, it would mean nothing to me. I would like to know if others feel the same way. If not, can they convince me?

If that is all you wish to discuss it seems hardly necessary to even mention Hugh Ross's book.

I mention Hugh Ross's book because I am setting the table for a future debate focused on the evidences in the book.

Again maybe it is just me but perhaps you should explain those terms and why you mention them. Myself, I don't have a clue as to what they mean.

I mention the five other tests because they are mentioned by Hugh Ross and because they are the five most likely challengers to explanatory power and predictive success. Of course, other tests might be proposed by members of the forum. By mentioning them, members could research them and then bring their views to the debate.

I used to debate here under the name designtheorist. I forgot my password and the password reset feature did not work for me. None of the emails I use was recognized, so I established a new account.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 1:29 AM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 10:43 AM designtheorist has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 143 (694367)
03-22-2013 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by designtheorist
03-22-2013 10:23 AM


Definitions
I understand better now.

You are proposing to simplely fish for any other objections to testing any theory (other than explanatory power and predictions). We can limit this thread to that topic then.

As a kick off you could define those other terms and reject them as not being as important as explanatory power and predictions then and give your reasons. Then I think we have a clear topic that can be promoted.

I'm not at all sure how to fix your id problem. Others will clean it up.

Edited by AdminNosy, : correct grammer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by designtheorist, posted 03-22-2013 10:23 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by designtheorist, posted 03-23-2013 1:17 PM AdminNosy has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 7 of 143 (694368)
03-23-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
03-22-2013 10:43 AM


Revised Version
Forum - Is it Science?

Thread Title: What would it take for you to become a RTB creationist?

Many times intelligent design and creationism are criticized as not being science or not being fully developed scientific theories. A new approach has been introduced and is worthy of debate. Before debating the evidence for this new model, I would like to debate the ground rules for determining if a model should be embraced by the scientific community.

Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe, a “ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible.” (quoted from the RTB website) Dr. Ross has written a book titled “More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation.” In the book, he discusses each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (the model developed by Ross and his team).

For a viewpoint to be considered science, it has to be testable. There are many hypotheses, such as belief in the multiverse or belief the Big Bang was caused by a vacuum fluctuation, which are not testable. Therefore, they are not science in the normal sense. (This debate is not about the multiverse or vacuum fluctuated universe. These are only examples.)

Direct observation is generally important in science. But direct observation of origins is not possible. Other evidence has been brought forward and other tests have been proposed. It is these tests themselves I wish to debate.

Ross writes: “Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications.” p.255

I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests. The other five tests: censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications are merely confirmatory in my mind. In other words a theory may pass the five minor tests but if they fail the first two, then they fail.

If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models in explanatory power and predictive success over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the RTB creation model.

What do you say? Is success in these two tests enough for you to embrace RTB’s creation model? Or would you require something else? How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you? Is there some other test you would like to see RTB’s creation model pass before you accept it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 10:43 AM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 03-23-2013 1:55 PM designtheorist has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 143 (694369)
03-23-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by designtheorist
03-23-2013 1:17 PM


Revisions
Thanks for trying again. I think that a discussion of just what it takes to give a theory some acceptance (of varying degrees) is a good idea.

You said you wanted to establish these rules before going on to the RTB model. However, you're so anxious to get to it (and I'm sure others here are as well) that you're jumping ahead a little. Including in the title I note.

But after reading through the extra verbiage what you are asking is there. However, you still haven't defined what you mean with the other 5 terms and, as I said, I don't know what they mean so I think it is safe to assume many others won't either.

Can you edit message 1; change the title to something like "Separating good theories from bad" or "Criteria for judging Scientific Theories"'; and add the definitions of the extra terms.

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by designtheorist, posted 03-23-2013 1:17 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 9 of 143 (694370)
03-24-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminNosy
03-23-2013 1:55 PM


Thanks for helping me sharpen this
Forum: Is it Science?
Thread Title: Criteria for judging scientific theories

Many times intelligent design and creationism are criticized as not being science or not being fully developed scientific theories. A new approach has been introduced and is worthy of debate. Before debating the evidence for this new model, I would like to debate the ground rules for determining if a model should be embraced by the scientific community.

Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe, a “ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible.” (quoted from the RTB website) Dr. Ross has written a book titled “More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation.” In the book, he discusses each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (the model developed by Ross and his team).

For a viewpoint to be considered science, it has to be testable. Direct observation is generally important in science. But direct observation of origins is not possible. Other evidence has been brought forward and other tests have been proposed. It is these tests themselves I wish to debate.

Ross writes: “Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications.” p.255

Explanatory power and predictive success are well-known, but the other five tests are less so. Below is a series selected quotes describing these five minor tests:

Censorship
“Ideologues, who tend toward fear, often censor what they view as serious threats to their paradigms. The prohibition of valid theistic models for the origins and history of the universe, Earth, and life may be an indicator that those scientific models offer a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of nature’s record. One measure of RTB’s creation model might be the ongoing purposeful attempts to ignore or shut out its claims – not only from naturalists, young-earth creationists, or theistic evolutionists but rather from all three.”

Stultification
“The stultification test identifies faulty models by measuring the degree to which a model impedes scientific advance. Likewise, this tests identifies successful models by measuring the extent to which a model stimulates scientific progress with the greatest efficiency and economy.

“To be sure, some poor interpretations and applications of Scripture today justify the complaint that Christianity stultifies science. However, historically, Christianity gave birth to both the scientific method and the scientific revolution. A sound biblical interpretation generates a desire to know more about the Creator and his creation. Such motives stimulate increasing research efforts and explorations in the realm of science.”

Integration
“Overspecialization in science can seriously impede the testing of creation/evolution models. Some researchers (e.g. many anthropologists, zoologists, and chemists) have little if any exposure to those eras of cosmic or terrestrial history in which creation proponents claim divine activity occurred. Accordingly, these scientists lack the opportunity – and the impetus – to witness the merits of creation models and put them to the test.

“The integration test simply evaluates which creation/evolution models provide the best and most seamless integration of various scientific disciplines. The best model should explain at least some phenomena in all disciplines in a manner distinct from and superior to that offered by other models. It should also supply the best integration of the entire history of the universe, Earth and life.”

Research Passion
“North America today faces a serious science education crisis. That crisis is especially pronounced in the United States. A number of causes largely account for a dramatic drop in the public’s zeal for science.”

“A large percentage, perhaps a majority, of America’s science and engineering graduate students now come from other countries. South Korea, with only one-sixth the U.S. population, graduates almost as many engineers. In a 2003 address to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry (1996), forecast that “by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia.”

“Could it be that, to some degree, the American science education crisis stems from the quelling of controversy? Has dismissive attitude toward any alternative to strict naturalism made science education boring? Is fear of the religious or philosophical implications of amazing new scientific discoveries prompting American science educators to squash discussion of the important and intriguing why questions? Do science educators avoid the very issues with the most potential to engage their students?”

“This research passion test measures the degree to which a model engenders a zeal for studying science and a joy over what is being discovered, not only for science students but also for the general public. The better the creation/evolution model, the more it ignites enthusiasm for science.”

Destiny implications
“The drive to fulfill destiny did not evolve from lower species. No other life-form on Earth manifests it to any degree. Nor did it evolve within the human species. Archaeology shows that the earliest humans displayed the same strong impetus toward eternal destiny as people experience today.”

“A seventh test for all creation/evolution models, then, is how well does the model explain and satisfy the human drive to seek and achieve an ultimate hope, purpose and destiny.”

These minor tests are interesting, but I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests. In other words a theory may pass the five minor tests but if they fail the first two, then they fail.

If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models in explanatory power and predictive success over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the RTB creation model.

What do you say? Is success in the two main tests enough for you? Or would you require something else? How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you? Is there some other test you would like to see a model pass before you accept it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 03-23-2013 1:55 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 11:16 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:32 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:46 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:34 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 10 of 143 (694372)
03-24-2013 10:55 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Testing Theories of Origins thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 11 of 143 (694373)
03-24-2013 10:59 AM


Topic
Please note:
The topic here is what criteria you would use for accepting or rejecting a scientific theory. We are not going to jump into any particular theory yet. That will be in another thread when some agreement is reached here.

There's lots to discuss here if the additional five are included so keep focused.


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 3:03 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 12 of 143 (694376)
03-24-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


Censorship? What censorship?
Well, there certainly is a lot to deal with here. I'll just take one little part.

Censorship
“Ideologues, who tend toward fear, often censor what they view as serious threats to their paradigms. The prohibition of valid theistic models for the origins and history of the universe, Earth, and life may be an indicator that those scientific models offer a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of nature’s record. One measure of RTB’s creation model might be the ongoing purposeful attempts to ignore or shut out its claims – not only from naturalists, young-earth creationists, or theistic evolutionists but rather from all three.”

The biggest problem with this is that nobody is trying to censor creationism. Creationists are free to publish all the books that they want (and they seem to want to publish a lot, because they do). They are free to go on lecture tours. They are free to go on the radio and television and preach the gospel of creationism to their hearts' content. They can even teach their religion in private schools.

The one thing they cannot do is have it taught in public school science classes. But that restriction has nothing to do with censorship. It is only because creationism is a religion, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states from promoting religions.

Edited by subbie, : Subtitle


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:00 PM subbie has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5158
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 13 of 143 (694378)
03-24-2013 11:41 AM


It seems to me that this guy is special pleading; we already have a tried a tested scientific method, let him bring whatever fabulous new theory he has and see if it measures up.

If he wants to change the rules before he starts, that's a pretty big clue that he feels that his ideas fail the standard tests.

His other five 'tests' are, by the way, mostly bullshit.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 03-24-2013 1:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 14 of 143 (694379)
03-24-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


Re: Thanks for helping me sharpen this
Given the dishonesty on display here, I very much doubt that Ross's claim to have a successful creation model is any more true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:07 PM PaulK has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 15 of 143 (694382)
03-24-2013 1:05 PM


Once again: The Topic
The topic is, for now, what criteria you'd use to give greater or lessor credence to a theory.

The OP author says he wants to establish that before going at any particular theory.

Patience please.


  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017