|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Ned says:
I didn't check back to see if he did make that mistake. But you make a good point in any case. Muchas gracias.
A theory is, among other thing, an organization of what is known as simple facts. I think we were arguing about the word "function." I was meaning it as purpose, and Ifen was meaning "uses" (I think; Ifen, please correct me if I am wrong). The uses of a theory may be to predict/understand the world, but what a theory actually is is a description of reality. A log is wood, and can be used to float around an alpine lake on (which is very fun, by the way).
He is only using shorthand. The ToE is a fully scientific theory and stands in very well for any of them. I understood that he meant evolution, but using the words "evolution" and "science" interchangeably is implicitly arguing for the unscientificness (not a word) of anti-evolutionism. It's ok to explicitly debate that, but being sneaky with words is, well, sneaky. (even if done unintentionally)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life, and enough evidence to convince me that creation is the most likely supernatural explanation. I understand not debating this right now. What I might point out is that this is dangerously close to "God-of-the-gaps". It is based on what we don't know. You can't have enough evidence against naturalistic processes in this area. We simply haven't explored it enough yet. It is an open question. That is, it is a gap in our knowledge. Using those to find God is considered bad theology by most.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Well the overwelming majority of religious humanists are evos, but you went the wrong way. Not all evo's are religious humanists, some are atheist, some agnostic, some theist, some deist, some christian, or buddhist. So there is a wider representation of religious beliefs.
I would be interested if anyone can cite scientific work being done in a creationist paradign that is not simply attempting refutations of ToE. Not that testing the theory that way is a bad thing, but I'm interested in any creative science growing out of creationism. Medical breakthroughs? or even predictions that are verified and or explain something that ToE hasn't explained. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
What "fatal flaws" might you find? Don't worry about having to back them up as yet. My guess is that some "junk DNA" controls/has some effect on recombination, and that a large amount of adaptation is "programmed in." I think that there may be more adaptation programmed into cells than could have happened via evolution.
Actually, this might be a good place to spin off a new thread with that as a topic. I know an admin that will quickly approve it. This is so speculative that I wouldn't think a thread about it would go very far, but if you think it would be good I could start one about this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Where on earth did you get that idea?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Ifen says:
I get the impression that many think ToE is something developed to refute their religion. I don't think that.
I wanted to point out that ToE has generated a lot of good science, it is a theory that "earns it's keep" and that is am important function of a good scientific theory that it generate testable hypothesis and that it provides a framework to advance knowledge. I agree that it is an important use for a theory, but not that it's purpose. If you disagree with the post I just did that covered this, please let me know and we can keep going on this.
And "what is reality" would be another thread. The funny thing is that I wasn't even trying to bring up the reality issue, and both you and Ned noticed it in my post. I do agree with you that it is a seperate topic.
I just wanted to point out that ToE is at the present a functioning theory whose value can be shown not by "reality" but by how it facilitates science and medicine among other things. The goal of science is to find truth; that truth can be useful, and if a theory is useful, that is one indication that it might be true. However, the usefulness of evolution is debatable, and even if it were incredibly useful, that would be on the level of circumstantial evidence.
I don't see creationist science generating much good science. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with creaionism (or anti-evolutionism), just with the scientists. I will use myself as an example of how the creationist paradigm can "generate good science." My creationist viewpoint leads me to suspect that there would not be "junk DNA" in any apreciable amount, and to research it further, looking for undiscovered mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are you claiming that there is no possible way that there could be a naturalistic explanation for life? If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient?
quote: You have examined ALL of the different supernatural ideas? There are infinite supernatural ideas, many of them utterly unrelated and contradictory. How can you conclude supernatural creation as most likely when each idea is equally valid and wildly different from the next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I would further define science as "the description of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations." Please also remember that the scientific tenet of falsifiability means that we know that we can never know the complete "truth" about anything in nature. We can be REALLY confident that we are correct, but all scientific findings and theories are always, in principle, able to be modified in the light of new evidence.
quote: Um, the usefulness of the ToE is quite established. The ToE has spawned entire scientific disciplines (population genetics, for example) and is the unifying theory that underpins pretty much all of the life sciences. I would put the Theory of Evolution on a par with the Atomic Theory of Matter, and Relativity Theory in importance.
quote: Um, we directly observe evolution happening, in real time, both in the lab and in the field. Furthermore, just because an event isn't directly observed doesn't mean we cannot study it and reach valid conclusions regarding it. Nobody has ever directly observed an electron. Do you deny that electrons exist? The following is a very good short essay which explains what science is and isn't, and it also explains how ideas and theories are confirmed, etc. I think you will like it, and I also think that it might clear up some misconceptions you might have. science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
I am like that with the YEC issue. Can you show me an example of where I was not? When I claimed the stars were about a mile high, you calmly (or at least that's how it appeared through the computer screen) asked me what evidence I had, then pointed out a problem with my hypothesis. You did not just assert that I was wrong. With the YEC issue, you have pointed out things you see as problems (like the flood), but on multiple occasions you also just asserted I was wrong.
The reason my definition describes Creation science as a pseudoscience is because it is one. IOW, it fits the definition of a pseudoscience, so it makes sense to describe it as such. True, and after I fully read your definition I realized that. I wasn't accusing you of being underhanded, it just struck me as humorous that the answer to the debate was in the definition.
Hmm, it wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened. Probably won't be the last, either. Oh well...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
The scientific method as it stands now has only been around for approx. 200 years. True, so it wasn't the scientific community that thought the earth was flat; there was no scientific community. I stand corrected.
I didn't quite understand this. Are you saying that you disbelieve evolution for emotional or scientific reasons? I can't believe I wrote that, but what's worse is that I proofread it, too. Anyway, what I meant to say was that I disbelieve evolution because of scientific reasons, not emotional ones.
This is why flood geology was dropped 50 years before Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". We know much more now than we did then, and even if they came to the best conclusion they could from the available data, that doesn't mean that conclusion should still stand today. But anyway, that is a seperate debate.
I don't mean to be harsh. You have aggressive arguments and good points, but you aren't harsh.
I have a feeling you may be our next Hangdawg. I will say that you are a very pleasant poster and I look forward to further debate (hopefully on a more specific topic within genetics). Thanks for the compliment, and I too look forward to debating the actual issues. I have to let you know that it may be a couple months before I am comfortable engaging you about genetics, but the day is coming...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
You can't have enough evidence against naturalistic processes in this area. We simply haven't explored it enough yet. It is an open question. That is, it is a gap in our knowledge. Very good point, so I will elaborate a little. Evolution is the only naturalistic theory I consider considerable (if anyone has any ideas other than time travel and alien creation, or reasons why those two are plausible, let me know). I think evolution doesn't work, so that leaves me without any naturalistic explanations. I acknowledge that there could be other naturalistic explanations, and no matter how much research we do, there could always be more. Does the fact that it is theoretically possible to come up with a better naturalistic explanation, even though we have no comprehension of what it would be (if it is even possible), mean that it is illogical or hasty to believe in a supernatural explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
there was no scientific community. I stand corrected.
I think this is still on topic (the topic leaves a fair amount of room): 200 years to 400 years is about the right time to age the scientific approach as we see it now. It wasn't all put together in one instance so you can't draw a firm line. It is frequently dated from Galileo as he followed a primitive form of the scientific method in much of what he did. That gives us 400 years. If we look at individuals and what they did then we might see little sparks of it long before. The fact that the Earth is a sphere was recognized by the Greeks and the diameter was rather accurately measured. The methods look good even now. Was it "science" as we use it today? That could be argued about but why bother. I've read that the educated in Columbus's day understood that the earth was round. It is a misconception that this was the problem that those who opposed him had. The flat earth was held by those less educated just as there are many misconceptions held by the under educated today. In fact, those who opposed Columbus were correct. He was wrong! He thought the earth was only about 16,000 miles in circumference. His opponents had the much better value of about what it actually is. If he hadn't had the dumb luck to run into an "extra" continent then he might as well have sailed off the edge of the earth. He'd never have made it across a sea streching from Europe to China. That is what his opponents were saying. MMM, that was a bit of a digression. The points are:There have been little sparks of science spread over many centuries. It is possible to date our current understanding of science from somewhere between 400 and 200 years ago. Just depends on what you pick. If you get fussy enough you might pick a time more like 100 years ago as the philosophy got more and more sorted out. Some people (and maybe we could argue that they were "scientists") knew the earth wasn't flat over 2,000 years ago. Many people (the more educated) knew it 500 years ago. and ( a bit more contentious, and possibly wrong)If anyone "knew" the earth was flat it would have been the Biblical literalists. And one more digression:It is, of course, common sense that the earth is flat. Just look around you. At first glance that is the right answer. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 11:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Not all evo's are religious humanists, some are atheist, some agnostic, some theist, some deist, some christian, or buddhist. So there is a wider representation of religious beliefs. I see what you are saying. My point, though, was only that evolution is a religious tenet for some; for a lot of people, it is subject to the same feelings creation is subject to.
I would be interested if anyone can cite scientific work being done in a creationist paradign that is not simply attempting refutations of ToE. Any scientist who is a creationist is working within the creationist paradigm. I do not want to spend the time researching scientists to find out who is a creationist, but I am sure there is at least one creationist scientist doing good research. Anyway, I gave you an example of how the creationist belief can lead to valid research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Where on earth did you get that idea? Here is "A Secular Humanist Declaration," signed by Asimov, Crick, and Kurtz, amongst others, which strongly endorses evolution. It is statements like that where I got that idea. However, after carefully reading that statement, I realized that it is naturalism, not evolution, which is a tenet of humanism, and someone could be a humanist without believing evolution. I stand (well, actually sit) corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient? Who says I'm not? I think I dealt with this in a slightly earlier post.
How can you conclude supernatural creation as most likely when each idea is equally valid and wildly different from the next? From the general veracity of the bible (I am debating our ability to determine the overall veracity of the Bible from the truth of certain statements in the "mythical Bible" thread) in regards to the supernatural, I am willing to, on faith, believe that the Bible is accurate in regards to creation. I do not claim, though, that my beliefs regarding the supernatural are scientific.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024