|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
The first hurdle that creationism needs to get over, at least in the arena of biology, is in explaining the basic observations.
What mixtures of physical characteristics should we see or not see in both living and fossil species, and why? Should we see fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Yes/No, and why? When we compare the DNA sequence of genes from different organisms, what does creationism predict we will see, and why? If there is a 10% sequence difference between a mouse and human gene and a 20% difference between that same human gene and the orthologous chicken gene, then what should the difference be between the chicken and mouse gene, and why? If creationism can't answer questions like these in a testable and falsifiable manner, then it isn't a scientific theory. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
quote: It applies to the question of creationism's scientific merit. A scientific theory must be a testable and falsifiable model that explains the observations. If creationism can't explain the observations, then it isn't scientific. I think we are all granting that creationism can be a religious belief that can't explain the facts. You aren't arguing that position, however. You are arguing that creationism can have scientific merit. In order to support this argument, you must show how creationism can make testable and falsifiable predictions as it applies to the observations made in the field of biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
quote: No scientific theory is supported solely by the lack of any other explanation. Every scientific theory must make positive claims that are testable and falsifiable. You need more than an argument from ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
quote: Things that don't exist do have the potential of being falsified. If a supernatural designer of life does not exist, then it can be falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
jar writes: I think a little bit more than that is needed; for example there needs to be some evidence that there is some designer and that Dawn's Creationism explains what is seen in the world better than the evolved under natural causes explanation. Accurate predictions are considered evidence in science. Accurate predictions are considered explanations.
There have been many posts over the decades pointing out the significant differences between what is seen in things known to be designed and in what is seen in those things not known to be designed. Dawn needs to present evidence that explains those differences and also explains what is seen better than the current theories. I tried to start the conversation down that path with my first post in this thread. Could a designer who created both mammals and birds also create a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? It would seem so to me. Perhaps Dawn could chime in. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
jar writes: But I fear many folk today simply don't understand what a prediction in science really is. If someone wants to claim that a model is scientific, it is their duty to learn what science is, how science works, and what a scientific explanation is. If you fear that there is a creationist in this thread who doesn't understand what science is, your fears may be justified. I think we would also be justified in concluding that there is a creationist in this thread who doesn't understand how the observed facts evidence the theory of evolution, or even what those observations are. In my experience, most creationists don't understand what phylogenies are, or how important phylogenies are in the overall field of biology. All too often, we see wrong statements like "a common creator could produce species with similarities as well, completely ignoring the fact that it isn't simply similarities that evidence evolution. They never seem to realize that it is the PATTERN of similarities that evidences evolution. More to the point, creationists have yet to produce a single explanation for the pattern of similarities seen in biology.
The importance of prediction is not simply to get it right but to provide new information that can later be tested and verified. Completely agree. I like this prediction made in 1965, well before DNA sequencing data was coming in (yanked from talkorigins): "It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life." Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Here is an illustration, in reality we have laws and then we have humanly devised principles. Gravity and existence are two of the actual laws. Falsifiabilty and Parisomony are humanly devised principles Newton's Laws of Gravity were devised by the human named Isaac Newton. Those laws were falsifiable, and they were in fact falsified by work done in part by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. How do you explain that? Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: I am going to get the main ideas out of each of thewe numerous post and respond in that mannerTo many post to respond to each on individually I hope this not offensive. Oncr having done this your free to point out anything you think I've missed Thanks for you patience Dawn Bertot If you could, I would be much more interested to hear how creationism is able to predict what patterns we should see in biology, both at the morphological and genetic level. Which physical features should we see together, and which should we not, and why? What patterns of shared and divergent sequence should we see when we compare genomes, and why? For example, would a designer be able to mix things like feathers and three middle ear bones? Would a designer be able to use the a gene from jellyfish, mice, and chickens all in the same organism, with the same exact sequence as found in those other species? Those are the types of things creationism needs to tackle if it is going to be considered a science. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Faith writes: Don't know how Dawn will answer you but I think it's the difference between a reality and a verbal formulation. It is the verbal formulation that has to be open to testing and falsifiability. For example . . .
That remains a physical reality, a divine law if you will, even if a more precise understanding would put it differently. How is the claim of divinity open to testing and falsifiable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: As I suspected you use indirect evidence based on its design to determine that something as uncomplicated as a mug was designedBut you want us to provide absolute evidence not indirect evidence for something as complicated and intricate as the human brain If ID/creationism is to be scientific, then the claim of design needs to be testable and falsifiable. If ID/creationism is not scientific, then now would be the time to say so before the thread continues. If you want to claim that ID/creationism is scientific then you have to demonstrate that it meets the criteria of being scientific. A good analogy would be baseball. If you are playing baseball then you have agreed to play by the rules. You can't decide halfway through a game that a run is scored by simply getting to first base because you are having difficulty making it all the way to home. You can't redefine what science is simply because ID/creationism can't meet the already existent definition. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Here's the problem Dr A. When a secular fundamental humanist asks us for Evidence, they mean direct absolute evidence. The rules of science require empirical evidence. If your evidence isn't empirical, then ID/creationism isn't scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Things are getting tough aren't they Dr A. Please give me and example of something a human designed that does not have a purpose If you can't I'll need to assume correctly that intricate design has a purpose. Humans make ice in freezers. We find ice at the North Pole. Therefore, the ice at the North Pole was made by humans in freezers. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: ou need to demonstrate a question I've asked is irrelevantYou see How You avoid answering. Do things exist. Yes or no Whether a thing exists is irrelevant to the question of a claim being scientific. Rainbows exist. The claim that invisible unicorns create rainbows is not testable and not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. You can't evidence invisible unicorns simply by pointing to rainbows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dawn Bertot writes: But my simple friend I'm showing you you don't get to make the rules as to what constitutes science, that is decided by laws in nature. Scientists make the rules as to what is and isn't science. The rules are already in place, and they require a hypothesis to be both testable and falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dawn Bertot writes: I use the same indirect evidence you use to establish that things are here by soley natural causes You don't use them in a scientific manner. If you want to claim that ID/creatoinism is scientific, then you need to use the evidence as part of a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
Now that we have established per my question about human design that purpose is clearly different than function, is be justified and reasonable concluding that the intricate design at least indirectly supports Creation, correct? Not correct. You have not produced a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. All you have is the claim that intricate design is produced by a deity. You have nothing but that claim. Just because humans can create intricate design does not mean all intricate designs are created by an intelligence. I would think that would be obvious.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024