Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 143 (694409)
03-24-2013 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled.
Well, this is the sort of thing I was warning against. "Goddidit" is not actually superior even to "I don't know", because although it gratifies the desire to have an explanation, there's no predictive power there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 32 of 143 (694414)
03-24-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
03-24-2013 3:21 PM


Minor tests used against young earth creationism
have no idea what you mean or what point you are making when you talk about these "minor tests" being "used against creationism."
The tests have been used in the past against young-earth creationism. The arguments don't work against the RTB model of creationism or at least Ross does not think so.
Censorship
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
Stultification
This is often used against young-earth creationism when people say "If you get your science from the Bible, there is no reason to do research." So the claim is that Christianity promotes ignorance. It is true that young earth creationists have not done a lot of research. But that seems to be changing as the young earth creationists are losing ground. Ross actually has a couple of sections in his book on this topic. When the Bible is interpreted rightly, it encourages research.
Ross writes: "If one model generates more scientific breakthroughs, better explanations of natural phenomena, and more comprehensive integration of scientific disciplines for less effort and expense than a competing model, then the better model deserves consideration, whatever its philosophical or religious implications."
Integration
For a long time young earth creationists thought the discipline of geology was the only field that was problematic. The last half century has shown the problem of an old universe and old earth is found in many different scientific disciplines.
Research Passion
I don't particularly like this test because research passion can be similar to a fad. Early after Darwin published his first book, it released a great deal of research passion. Some scientists pointed to this as new passion as evidence it is a better theory. Now the story is different.
Ross tells the story of Chinese paleontologists studying the famous Cambrian explosion fossils in the Chengjiang shale in the Yunnan province saying "In China we are not allowed to criticize our government leaders, but we are free to criticize Darwin. In your country you are free to criticize your government leaders, but you are not permitted to criticize Darwin."
This suppression of any criticism of Darwin is a problem in the U.S. Ross believes it is a major reason U.S. students are not studying science as much as Asian students.
Destiny Implications
This seems to be the only test that has not been used against the young-earth creationists. I could be wrong, but it looks like a test developed by Ross. It has some similar characteristics as some of the tests used against the young-earth creationists. It may even be valid as a confirmatory test.
I hope this answers your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 3:21 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 4:38 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 6:00 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 33 of 143 (694416)
03-24-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
03-24-2013 3:31 PM


Re: What dishonesty?
Okay, so you have questions or criticisms but no real evidence of dishonesty.
I am running out of time at the moment. I will attempt to answer soon. For now, let me say some of your criticisms probably have value and others are due to the fact I did not fully explain. I will again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 4:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 143 (694417)
03-24-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 4:04 PM


Re: What dishonesty?
He's proposing bogus tests and making bogus arguments to claim that his model passes them. That's pretty good evidence of dishonesty.
So are the bogus justifications you just posted.
Why would Ross be doing this if his model really was as good as he claims ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:04 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 35 of 143 (694418)
03-24-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 3:47 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Well, this is the sort of thing I was warning against. "Goddidit" is not actually superior even to "I don't know", because although it gratifies the desire to have an explanation, there's no predictive power there.
At this point, we are not getting into the evidence. I only provided some examples of some of the data that has to be explained. The point is:
Explanatory power - means the ability to explain data we have.
Predictive success - means the ability to make predictions about what we are going to learn in the near future.
Ross claims the RTB Creation Model has had more predictive success than any other model of origins. But let's not get into that just yet.
My questions to you are:
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 9:56 PM designtheorist has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 36 of 143 (694419)
03-24-2013 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Minor tests used against young earth creationism
quote:
The tests have been used in the past against young-earth creationism. The arguments don't work against the RTB model of creationism or at least Ross does not think so.
That YECs have been criticised for doing something does not make it a test of the scientific value or even the truth of their theories.
quote:
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
I'd say that the Scopes trial was more about the quality of education - and about establishment of religion. Evolution had already won in scientific circles, and the law was obviously religious in nature.
quote:
This is often used against young-earth creationism when people say "If you get your science from the Bible, there is no reason to do research." So the claim is that Christianity promotes ignorance. It is true that young earth creationists have not done a lot of research. But that seems to be changing as the young earth creationists are losing ground. Ross actually has a couple of sections in his book on this topic. When the Bible is interpreted rightly, it encourages research.
Of course the main problem is religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question.
quote:
Ross writes: "If one model generates more scientific breakthroughs, better explanations of natural phenomena, and more comprehensive integration of scientific disciplines for less effort and expense than a competing model, then the better model deserves consideration, whatever its philosophical or religious implications."
So is Ross going to abandon creationism ?
quote:
For a long time young earth creationists thought the discipline of geology was the only field that was problematic. The last half century has shown the problem of an old universe and old earth is found in many different scientific disciplines.
But how does this show that integration is a good general test ? Isn't a large part of it because the YEC views on the age of the Earth are so far adrift ?
quote:
Ross tells the story of Chinese paleontologists studying the famous Cambrian explosion fossils in the Chengjiang shale in the Yunnan province saying "In China we are not allowed to criticize our government leaders, but we are free to criticize Darwin. In your country you are free to criticize your government leaders, but you are not permitted to criticize Darwin."
This suppression of any criticism of Darwin is a problem in the U.S. Ross believes it is a major reason U.S. students are not studying science as much as Asian students.
Like to show me anyone who has been thrown in jail just for "criticising Darwin" ?
And isn't this just an example of religion causing stultification ? Which Ross wants to support, quite possibly to the extent of censorship ?
quote:
This seems to be the only test that has not been used against the young-earth creationists. I could be wrong, but it looks like a test developed by Ross. It has some similar characteristics as some of the tests used against the young-earth creationists. It may even be valid as a confirmatory test.
Well, please explain why it is a valid test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:59 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 143 (694424)
03-24-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
We need a theory that will explain...the cessation of new life forms evolving after mankind came on the scene
Who believes the above to be the case? I think we should stick to requiring theories to explain established facts.
Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.
censorship
All of the explanations I've seen for why this is a meaningful test so far seem like loser's whining about not gaining traction. Why isn't acceptance by scientists a valued measure? Further who has a stronger claim to censorship than Giordano Bruno?
"Predictive Power"
Possibly some merit to this, but as used by Hugh, the measure is total crap.
As far as predictive power goes, I've looked at the table of predictions Hugh is using (link below). The predictions made for "Naturalism" contain a number of predictions that show a very naive and simplistic view of science, and other predictions that are total crap. For example, there is no single 'naturalistic' view of 'fine tuning'.
Page not found - Reasons to Believe

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM NoNukes has replied

  
GrimSqueaker
Member (Idle past 3688 days)
Posts: 137
From: Ireland
Joined: 03-15-2013


Message 38 of 143 (694425)
03-24-2013 5:30 PM


I need to reread this thread to point out specifics - BUT right off the bat the RTB model seems like really bad science. It is beginning with an assertion that the biblical account is true and trying to put spin on things so that they fit, even if his model was true (multiple creation events part for example - which it really isn't) it still wouldn't lead to "My God did it" - Thor, Horus or Aliens would just as easily fit the bill
Also it's using a lay man's terminology for Theory rather the scientific meaning in order to compet with evolution, evolution has earned it's title as Theory through many many many trials and a plethora of evidence

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 39 of 143 (694427)
03-24-2013 6:00 PM


Please don't just ahead
Several people are trying to debate the evidence. We will have that debate when the time is right.
The questions I would like people to focus on are these:
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model? Specifically, do you buy any of the five tests Ross mentions (four of which have been used against young-earth creationism)? Is there some other confirmatory test you think adds value that Ross did not mention?

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 6:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 143 (694428)
03-24-2013 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:59 PM


Censorship? What Censorship?
Censorship
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
Let's take this in small bites.
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example.
Criticism is not the same thing as censorship. Surely you will agree with that.
The Scopes trial was about keeping evolution of out public schools. But the fact that Tennessee was trying to keep evolution out says nothing whatsoever about whether evolution is a valuable scientific theory. All is says is that the Tennessee Legislature didn't want it in schools, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.
When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack.
You keep saying that creationism is being censored. We keep pointing out to you that it's not being censored, it's just not getting into scientific publications because it's not scientific. Are you saying that a refusal to publish non-scientific ideas in science journals amounts to censorship? If so, I would refer you to The Princess Bride. ("I do not think that word means what you think it means.")
If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed.
As I mentioned above, nobody is preventing creationists from bringing forward their ideas and discussing them. They are simply not getting into scientific publications because they are not science.
Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
Science is open to anyone to bring forward evidence and theories and submit them for discussion. Creationists have no evidence or theories.

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 32 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:59 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:31 PM subbie has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 41 of 143 (694429)
03-24-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 5:22 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Regarding the cessation of new life forms, you write:
Who believes the above to be the case? I think we should stick to requiring theories to explain established facts.
First, I was just using this as an example. I really do not want to debate the evidence yet but I thought it was well understood that we have fewer mammals on the planet now than in the past. If it was not well known, I would not have used it as an example.
Why isn't acceptance by scientists a valued measure?
What we are discussing is the tests scientists should use in choosing the best model. By including "acceptance of scientists" as a method, the reasoning would be circular and new theories would rarely get a hearing.
For example, there is no single 'naturalistic' view of 'fine tuning'.
This may well be true. It is possible to have more than one prediction when this is the case. How many different predictions have come out of the different naturalistic views of fine-tuning? If the view is not able to make any predictions, is it really science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 5:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 6:49 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 42 of 143 (694431)
03-24-2013 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by subbie
03-24-2013 6:00 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
The Scopes trial was about keeping evolution of out public schools. But the fact that Tennessee was trying to keep evolution out says nothing whatsoever about whether evolution is a valuable scientific theory. All is says is that the Tennessee Legislature didn't want it in schools, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.
Let me try again. The old and often used criticism of creationism is that creationists are afraid of data, facts and science. They point to the law passed in Tennessee and the prosecution of the teacher in the Scopes Trial as evidence of censorship. Obviously, if creationism wasn't afraid of data and science, they would not try to censor science in this manner. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. But it is only self-correcting when all sides get a thorough hearing of the evidence.
Whenever you see someone trying to gain an unfair advantage in a competition among ideas, then you have to realize the one seeking the unfair advantage is aware of the weakness of his position. If he was confident in his position, he would not seek to censor the other idea or prevent its publication.
Surely you have heard this argument before, right? And it does make some sense to you, correct?
Ross is agreeing that the test makes some sense. When people see their paradigm under attack, they get emotional. Sometimes they try to block publication of competing ideas and data. Sometimes they call people names and try to shout them down.
Ross is saying the test makes sense but it needs to be applied in all directions. If science is going to function as science, then the test has to be applied to all the competing models.
I am saying this test has some value but only confirmatory power. The major tests of explanatory power and predictive success are more important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 6:00 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 7:13 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:17 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-24-2013 9:40 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 43 of 143 (694432)
03-24-2013 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:00 PM


Re: Please don't just ahead
designtheorist1 writes:
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
Yes, probably. And also; it depends.
Specifically, do you buy any of the five tests Ross mentions (four of which have been used against young-earth creationism)?
No. They're all completely irrelevant.
Is there some other confirmatory test you think adds value that Ross did not mention?
Yes, probably. And also; it depends.
Now, can we cut the bullshit and get on with the actual ideas and evidence for them? If there's anything in them, it will be obvious and won't require special pleading or special tests.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:00 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 143 (694433)
03-24-2013 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:13 PM


Re: The Major Tests
I really do not want to debate the evidence yet but I thought it was well understood that we have fewer mammals on the planet now than in the past. If it was not well known, I would not have used it as an example.
Whether or not that your mammal statement true, has little or nothing at to do with the ceasing of evolution of new life forms since man appeared. Depending on your definition of man, man has existed over the past few hundred thousand to one million years. Who says that no evolution of life forms has occurred during that time?
Well maybe creationists who believe that no new creatures were formed after Day 7.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:13 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 45 of 143 (694436)
03-24-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:13 PM


Re: The Major Tests
What we are discussing is the tests scientists should use in choosing the best model. By including "acceptance of scientists" as a method, the reasoning would be circular and new theories would rarely get a hearing.
I thought the question was about tests indicating validity and not tests for who gets a hearing. The fact that a theory is favored should not count against validity. Similarly the idea that propositions gaining the most disdain from scientists are most likely correct is total nonsense. And from the silly stuff put forth to deflect the Church's past actions against scientists, it would appear that somebody knows that to be true.
You are reinforcing my "whining loser" opinion regarding this test.
It is possible to have more than one prediction when this is the case. How many different predictions have come out of the different naturalistic views of fine-tuning? If the view is not able to make any predictions, is it really science?
Where did I suggest taking on a view that makes no predictions?
One possible naturalistic view is that the forming of intelligent life only occurs in universes with particular constants. Another is that only such universes are even possible. Each view likely leads to different predictions about how much fine tuning will show up in the universe, yet Hugh provides a single prediction and calls that the naturalistic prediction.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM designtheorist 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