The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

If an intelligent creator created life, I doubt he would have had a huge amount of useless code. But anyway, it is an untested hypothesis, and currently not more than a hunch/prediction.I don't think any evidence has been overlooked. We just know so little about genetics (compared to what there is to know) that the "junk DNA" issue hasn't been researched yet. That is part of what is going to be so cool about working in genetics - there is a plethora of entirely unknown mechanisms to discover and learn about. Thanks, I did think that and I appreciate the correction.

Ned says: Muchas gracias. 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). 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)

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. 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.

Ifen says: I don't think that. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Probably won't be the last, either. Oh well...

True, so it wasn't the scientific community that thought the earth was flat; there was no scientific community. I stand corrected. 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. 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. You have aggressive arguments and good points, but you aren't harsh. 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...

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?

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. 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.

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.

Who says I'm not?I think I dealt with this in a slightly earlier post. 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.

Valid. That definitely furthers the simple definition I gave. I am fully aware of this, but thanks for bringing it up. Evolution, i.e. gradual change via many small changes, applies to many things, and thus is helpful in regards to many things. I do not, however, believe that it is sufficient to explain life. Change is observable in the field. Whether that change is evolution or not is debatable. (Unless you define evolution purely by change. Also, issues with "micro vs. macro evolution" could easily creep in here, but those are for a seperate debate.) I agree. I do like it, although it didn't reveal any misconceptions. I understand scientific method, but I only really learned about it in detail recently (after I came here). I am still getting used to using it and do misrepresent/misunderstand it sometimes, and appreciate correction when I do, but overall I understand it pretty well.

Interesting, informative, and appreciated, though.I have a question for anybody. Ever since Jar requested that I "use the little red button," my post count has increased dramatically and the topic's activity meter has spiked (both of which I think are cool), but I was wondering if the numerous small posts are annoying? Thanks.

You are probably right about that, I guess it is different thinking there is a God who did something as opposed to completely random chance.(note: phraseology chosen to push buttons in a jocular manner) But anyway, my point was that feelings about a theory have no bearing about its truth. That may be. I get those feelings, too (normally followed by awe of God). That is why I love science so much. It dates you, but the only words which would do so terribly (IMO) are those which would date you to the seventies/eighties.This message has been edited by JT, 08-11-2004 01:07 AM

Were they really that bad? Oops.

Reply to Post #198, by Crashfrog

---

I do disagree, and I'm game for that, but I probably won't have much time for it. By the way, are you still interested in the mythical bible thread? I have a message here which is awaiting response. Did Julius Ceaser exist? If your answer is "yes" or "probabably," why do you think so?Reply to Post #203, by Ifen

---

I am interested in both Truth and truth, and I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Big T is metaphysical, little t is physical? What is that? (I won't be debating your answer, I'm just curious) If by "western religion" you mean christianity, I disagree. Christianity explains consciousness by spirit. Thanks, and so are you.Reply to Post #209, by Mark24

---

Are you asking for reasons I disbelieve evolution or reasons I don't believe there is a naturalistic explanation? For the former, I believe that mutations/natural selection cannot explain life forms like we see today, that the fossil record does not support evolution, and other things. (note: I do not want to debate these things here, and I am asserting that I believe these things; I am not asserting the things themselves)If you meant the latter, I am currently debating about that under the "god of the gaps" subtopic, and would welcome any arguments you have that pertain to it.Reply to "Re: Jumping the gun," Post #210, by Schrafinator

---

Yes, we are different, because we have an accurate book about a man who made convincing claims to being God and creating the earth in a manner described in another book. I know that the accuracy of the Bible is debated, but if it is accurate and Jesus actually was dead for three days and then came back to life, doesn't that give him some credibility? In any case, it is much better supported than greek mythology. Or, "We don't know for sure, but we think..." It is ok, when science cannot shed light on an issue, to look somewhere else for knowledge. You need to be careful how you look, and know that it isn't as sure as science, but as long as you are careful there is nothing wrong with gaining knowledge outside of science.For example, take history. We can examine little of human history using scientific methods; much of our knowledge of history comes from ancient manuscripts whose claims cannot be verified. Scholars study these manuscripts and do what the can to determine what is true and false. Most historical accounts come with no garuntee of certainty, only the label "I, a scholar, think..."If only knowledge discovered by science was accepted, there would be no historical field of study. I do not recomend going from "I don't know" to "Goddidit." I don't know how the bananas got into the fruitbowl, but my answer isn't "Godidit." The reason that is my answer for the universe is because the Bible, which I believe is accurate, says so, and there is no other (known) explanation (in my opinion) which can account for the universe we see today.Reply to "RE: Really?", Post #211, by Jar

---

Oh good. Phew.Reply to "JT definitely has some smarts...", Post #213, by Pink Sasquatch

---

I have enjoyed your posts, and you definitely have not been harsh. Even if I had thought you were, the title of your post would have cleared that up. That sounds good - although my posts will probably appear less than often, because I will need to spend a lot of time researching. Thanks, but I cannot claim credit for it the guess. I recently heard another creationist talking about it, and the possibility sounded fascinating. I didn't know it had been researched, though. Thanks for showing me this; I was recently wondering where I could go to find actual research papers involving genetics. Now I know. The concept I have is basically that most organisms already have adaptations for a huge amount of different situations, and that to "adapt" to a situation does not require new genetic information, but an expression of what is already there. This would be a problem for evolution if the vast majority of organisms had numerous unexpressed adaptations for situations they couldn't possibly have encountered; if an organism hadn't encountered a situation, how could it have evolved adaptations for it?I don't have any evidence for that right now, though, it is an untested hypothesis. I don't believe either of the two could have evolved. I looked back through my posts, and the only statement like that I found was this: (in post #186: "My creationist viewpoint leads me to suspect that there would not be 'junk DNA' in any appreciable amount."I was talking about an assumption/prediction I made based on my opinion that creation is a better explanation of life than evolution is.However, I do make mistakes, and it is quite possible I said something like that. If I did, it was probably a thinko (sort of like a typo, but with an idea).To clarify: I disbelieve evolution because of evidence, not emotions (and I do my best to not let emotions affect my interpretation of the evidence).Reply to Post #215, by Schrafinator

---

Now that you mention it, you are right; I couldn't be omniscient. This will take some getting used too... I agree, and I don't think I have represented it otherwise; if I have, it was a mistake.Reply to Post #216, by Schrafinator

---

I was referring to life in its current forms, not just the origin of life. Sort of. What creationists mean by the concept "micro-evolution" is that genetic change happens, but not in a way which could lead to any substantial change. However, the actual term "micro-evolution" means "small evolution," which is not what creationists mean. I admit that the misuse of this term by creationists is, well, a fairly obvious misuse, and I will try to avoid using it in the future.{I'm not condeming JT for this message structure. It was something that I had (more or less) suggested. My suggestion was bad (or at least flawed). See Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question for discussion of this matter - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-15-2004 03:24 PM