Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 9 of 986 (783126)
05-03-2016 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 7:30 PM


Re: Falsification
In other words I have set out certain arguments concerning Falsifiability, especially concerning it's limitations and how it should be applied...
Is there any precedent in the philosophy of science literature concerning your critique of the criterion of falsifiability? If so, what are the relevant authors I should read up on? If not, can you explain in more depth why your argument has philosophical merit?
So as an answer directly to your question I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itself...
But that's not what TA was asking for, is it? TA was not asking a question regarding falsification of the overall teleological perspective of life; he/she/it was asking a very specific question -- namely, how your Biblical model for the origin of species can be falsified. The Biblical model is a very specific version of events; so how would it be falsified? If it's not falsifiable, then it's not really science.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 7:30 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-03-2016 8:05 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:35 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 12 of 986 (783132)
05-03-2016 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:19 PM


Re: The Basics
While I understand your questions please explain how and why these observations would apply to whether a thing was created, or created to operate in this manner you suggest or came about as a natural process directed by chance...
Well, not to jump ahead of Taq, but these are easy questions:
1. If a biological species was created according to the Biblical version of events, what predictions would we make about that thing? If no tangible, meaningful predictions can be made, then it's not science. It might be something else; but it's not science.
2. Why would these observations apply if biological species came about through the natural mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis? Well, for starters, we would expect a nested hierarchy of DNA sequences, since all of life would be genealogically related under the Neo-Darwinian explanatory framework. And we do indeed see that nested hierarchy in molecular phylogenies, paleontology, morphology, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 17 of 986 (783137)
05-03-2016 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:35 PM


Re: Falsification
It would be better to respond to my actual argument. Which is how would you falsify an axiomatic truth like existence itself.
The subject of axiomatic truths falls under the umbrella of metaphysics and the philosophy of logic. Science, on the other hand, is inductive -- and so its theories are not axiomatic. All scientific theories, therefore, may be potentially falsified -- and this is a linchpin criterion for something to qualify as scientific. You titled this thread as "The Science in Creationism," not "The Metaphysics in Creationism." Would you like to re-name this thread? Otherwise, if we are to discuss whether there is any scientific validity to creationism, you must explain how creationism is testable and falsifiable.
So is creationism science? Yes or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:55 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 22 of 986 (783143)
05-03-2016 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Falsification
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no
That's not a question relevant to determining if a model is scientific, so why would you even ask that in a thread titled "The Science in Creationism"? Your question is a metaphysical one, and not a scientific one.
I'd suggest you look into Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), wherein science and religion occupy two distinct domains of human reality. They address largely non-overlapping questions.
In similar fashion, metaphysics and science do not answer the same kinds of questions. Science only deals in theories and hypotheses which are falsifiable by experiment and observation; a metaphysics thread, then, is a more appropriate place for your question.
Your question has nothing to do with whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not properly falsifiable, it is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:38 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(4)
Message 23 of 986 (783144)
05-03-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:57 PM


Re: Falsification
How do you falsify an axiomatic truth
Wut?
Literally wut?
This thread is titled The Science in Creationism.
Science deals in theories and hypotheses that are falsifiable. So the subject of axiomatic truths is NOT the domain of science. Your thread is titled "The Science in Creationism," so the onus is on you to demonstrate that creationism is science by virtue of its falsifiability. If you can't do that, then (1) admit creationism isn't science, or (2) re-name the thread to "The Metaphysics of Creationism."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:11 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 26 of 986 (783147)
05-03-2016 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:11 PM


Re: Falsification
Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these laws
Scientific theories are falsifiable. Since you are unable to provide a falsification scenario for creationism, creationism is not science. Ipso facto, there is no science in creationism.
If you'd like to discuss the metaphysics of creationism, this is not the thread for that (since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism"), so maybe you can start another one called "The Metaphysics of Creationism."
Please answer those questions
They have nothing whatsoever to do with whether creationism is properly falsifiable. They are only attempts to steer the discussion towards metaphysics, which is weird since you called this thread "The Science in Creationism."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 30 of 986 (783151)
05-03-2016 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:38 PM


Re: Falsification
There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist.
Here.
Now that you know what metaphysics means, you will know that metaphysics addresses questions that are beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.
Refusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty
Your psychoanalysis still isn't relevant to whether creationism is falsifiable; and if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science.
Assuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonesty
Science does not deal in obvious or axiomatic truths; that's the domain of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics. Science deals in theories and models that can be falsified; three centuries ago, the caloric theory was accepted as scientifically valid, but it was falsified, so it is no longer a valid scientific theory.
If science was about axiomatic truths, then it would remain forever static; its theories would never change. But science is not so; its theories and hypotheses evolve continuously in light of new observations about the natural world. And this, too, is where its enormous explanatory power springs from. Since poor theories and hypotheses are ruthlessly eliminated by the cutting edge of Occam's razor and Popperian falsificationism, scientific models can be continuously refined until a simple theory can explain so much with so few principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 12:37 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 80 of 986 (783282)
05-04-2016 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 12:37 AM


Re: Falsification
Part of debating is Answering direct questions.
Unless they're irrelevant. Obviously.
Based on everything You CAN observe in a scientific way, do things exist?
Sure, based on what I can see around me.
Secondly how did you arrive at your conclusion?
Photons hit rhodopsins in my eyes, neurons fired and I was like, "There's stuff around me."
Part of establishing whether creationism is Falsifiable, you first have to decide whether it falsifiability is valid and needed in all places and cases.
Falsifiability is not needed in religion and theology.
Falsifiability is not needed in number theory and geometry.
Falsifiability is not needed in metaphysical notions.
Falsifiability IS needed for something to be considered a proper scientific theory, hypothesis, or model. You titled this thread "The Science in Creationism." So unless you can demonstrate that creationism is indeed falsifiable, it is not science. It can be religion, or metaphysics, but it's not science. It's really that simple.
Here is an illustration, in reality we have laws and then we have humanly devised principles.
Umm, scientific laws (such as those governing thermodynamics) are humanly devised principles.
Next, there is no such thing as the metaphysical, there is only reality.
Umm, did you look up the definition of "metaphysics" as it is commonly accepted in philosophy circles? Or is this more arm-chair pseudo-philosophy you're weaving?
ou are very correct that Your "science" does not deal with obvious or axiomatic truths and that is painfully clear.
It isn't, actually, painful because the success of science lies in its non-metaphysical nature.
But to assume that our science can't be science because I can actually discover an obvious truth only because I haven't applied an over applied principle is both dishonest and intellectually dishonest.
You don't get to define what "science" is. The philosophy of science -- that is, what constitutes science -- has over the course of centuries yielded a few basic principles that determine whether something qualifies as science. One of the linchpin criteria for something to be scientific is falsifiability. If you disagree, then you're just making up your own definitions. Which is intellectually dishonest, by the way.
Science is not what you decide it is, or must be based on your contrived principles.
Science is a social construct. And there is a consensus among philosophers, scientists, and other intelligentsia of what constitutes science. One of the key criteria is falsifiability, based on the revolutionary work of Karl Popper and others. Study the history of science; it will do you good.
Science is what reality decided it is...
Science is what social reality decided it to be.
Science is a systematic approach to studying the interplay among the phenomena of the natural world. Thus, by virtue of the fact that it is a systematic approach to studying natural phenomena, it inherently requires the existence of a species that can think, combine thoughts, and articulate and convey these thoughts. Before the rise of Homo sapiens -- and perhaps our cephalopod and Cetacean cousins -- there was no such thing as "science." It didn't exist, because no biological species was studying nature in the systematic way that defines science.
That you don't know the very basic meaning of science is at once telling and somewhat saddening.
Science doesn't change, facts are what they are.
If science doesn't change, why do we no longer accept caloric theory? Your attempt to re-define science is rather typical of creationists who think they can define terms to mean whatever they want it to mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 7:57 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 99 of 986 (783302)
05-04-2016 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 7:57 PM


Re: Falsification
Remarkably falsifiabiltyis not necessary where absolutes exist...
Where something is accepted as an axiomatic truth, falsifiability is not an issue. Thus, in mathematics -- for instance -- we deal with various geometric axioms that most U.S. kids learn in high school. These axioms, of course, do not always apply to the whole of mathematics ("The interior sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is not utterly true as stated). But falsification isn't much a part of mathematics; instead, faulty theorems are eliminated by beautiful proofs which combine axioms and postulates in a striking, novel arrangement.
But mathematics isn't science.
Thermodynamics is a term. You did not invent natural processes you discovered and named them...
Right. Because that process of active discovery is, in part, science.
The term metaphysics doesn't exist you made it up.
See below image. Apparently, I've convinced a lot of academic websites to use a term I conjured. A.k.a., you're wrong.
Screen Shot 2016 05 04 at 6 32 58 PM
Saying science is what science is a social construc is like saying you designed the law of nature. No son you discovered these rules the built principles around them
Well, first of all, I'm not your son and you don't even know my gender. Secondly, it is the act of discovering natural phenomena and building laws and theories to connect observations in a causal fashion that is known as science. So science is socially constructed by humans, inasmuch as mathematics and philosophy and logic are social constructs.
Science didn't exist prior to the emergence of Homo sapiens.
If I'm trying to redefine what science is or is not, then by all means show me how you yourself formed the laws in nature
Science is a systematic approach to studying and explaining natural phenomena. You're attempting to re-define it, which is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. "Laws of nature" isn't science, since science requires the active use of cognitive faculties by humans. These "laws of nature" may be explained and causally linked to other phenomena by scientific theories, but they are not science, because science is a method of investigating the natural world.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 108 of 986 (783313)
05-04-2016 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 9:22 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Design supersedes any premise you can detect observe or formulate from in what you believe to be soley natural causes
Define "design."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 9:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 12:16 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 142 of 986 (783350)
05-05-2016 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Dawn Bertot
05-05-2016 12:16 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Design is defined by clear and present order resulting in very specific purposes...
We know that random mutation coupled with natural selection can produce systems that have parts in a "clear order" that result in specific purposes that advantage the species under consideration. Design does not imply an intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 12:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 1:17 AM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 1:32 AM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 143 of 986 (783351)
05-05-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Tanypteryx
05-04-2016 11:08 PM


Re: Am I missing something here?
Do you guys understand what Dawn is saying? I cannot find any meaning in it. It just seems like he is stringing a bunch of nonsense phrases together with grammatical and spelling mistakes that frankly should have been corrected by the 7th grade.
Yes. This. I have attempted to extract some meaning from its strung together words, but it's really all gibberish. I think the problem is that Dawn itself does not know what it is saying. It requires a great deal of energy to try to find out what Dawn is maybe saying, which -- I suppose -- in line with your last quoted line, reflects on the poor educational environment Dawn grew up in.
That, and Dawn's assumption that everyone is a "sir," makes all of this very tragicomical.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-04-2016 11:08 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 184 of 986 (783398)
05-05-2016 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dawn Bertot
05-05-2016 1:32 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
How did natural selection and mutation happen to be here to allow this order you say exists
You're side-stepping the point. Since we know natural selection + random mutation can lead to the appearance of design, there's no such thing as an axiomatic, self-evident "truth of design."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 1:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 9:59 AM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-05-2016 10:03 AM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 214 of 986 (783445)
05-05-2016 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
05-05-2016 12:59 PM


Re: Nobody has any direct evidence
I think what you are saying here illustrates what Dawn is claiming about how you require (direct/scientific) evidence from creationists though you don't have any (direct/scientific} evidence yourself.
The evidence for the common genetic ancestry of all of terrestrial life is about as direct as the evidence we have for germ theory and the relativity theories. It's a consilience of evidence that all point to the same incontrovertible conclusion: that life on Earth has a shared genetic heritage, inasmuch as you share a common genetic heritage with your siblings and cousins.
The intricacies themselves are the indirect evidence Dawn is pointing to for the design of the eye. Intricacy is a quality of human design too and can be extrapolated to natural design. Intricacy, irreducible complexity, all that.
Yes, but both intelligent design and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can lead to intricate systems; both intelligent design and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can produce irreducibly complex systems. So the immediate extrapolation to intelligent design from "intricacy" must be supported by further evidence that match the predictions of a design/teleological model.
And I say this as an ID proponent.
Whereas on your side all you have is very very indirect evidence, the evidence of homologies that have no genetic relationship to one another.
It is not just homologies that lead to the conclusion of common ancestry; it is, instead, the nested hierarchical patterns of homology -- coupled with the concordance of evidence from paleontology, molecular biology, and morphology -- that lead to the conclusion of common descent. All of this is very strong evidence, and only makes sense in the light of common descent. There is no other explanation that makes sense; and the explanation we do have -- common descent -- is extremely robust in its explanatory power.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 12:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 229 of 986 (783460)
05-05-2016 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2016 1:40 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
No, that is all microevolution.
Define "microevolution" and contrast it with "macroevolution."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2016 1:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024