Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 946 of 986 (784826)
05-24-2016 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 944 by Dawn Bertot
05-24-2016 12:22 AM

Creationism can be detected in many ways. The only question before us is there science in my process. The answer is yes. Design is as easily detectable as awareness or consciousness.
One aspect of the scientific method is falsifiability.
How could the creationism/design hypothesis be falsified?
What test or what evidence could do that?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 947 of 986 (784831)
05-24-2016 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 944 by Dawn Bertot
05-24-2016 12:22 AM

And my point being, that since all the elements are there, the brain, the mechanism and the process, you should be able to see a chain of causality, using your very involved scientific method. I mean is something missing for you to NOT do this?
I don't know what consciousness, and I don't understand the mechanisms of the brain. And I'm not opening threads claiming I do know these things and that this knowledge is scientifically derived.
If you can't and you should be able to
There is no guarantee I can understand everything, nor does anything I see say suggest there is.
It's the science of investigation by observation of simple undeniable truths, that don't need involved processess.
I think most people call that basic logic, not science. But whatever floats your boat.
When you can demonstrate my processes needs to be involved to support my conclusion, then you will have,won the discussion
Why? My position is that the word science has a meaning and you are using it wrong. Which I have already demonstrated. I won this argument a long time ago, Dawn.
Creationism can be detected in many ways. The only question before us is there science in my process.
If there is, you haven't shown it. Unless you are talking about your private definitions of words that nobody else knows about. In which case, who the hell knows?
The answer is yes. Design is as easily detectable as awareness or consciousness
As I said, none of your observations have supported that life is Intelligently Designed, the existence of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, you have not provided any causal link from the Creator to the Created, so you've done nothing but look at something. I don't see why it's of any interest. All you have done is defined what you see as 'design' and postulated that something explains the 'design', this is nothing to do with what most people would call 'Creationism'.
So if you don't have a scientific theory or causal link for consciousness, can you still know that it exists
and are you doing science when you detect it's reality.
While, I'm not using an involved processess to detect design, but we can see that it exist, is there any thing really wrong with my conclusion, that follows from this processess, or do you not like it personally
The existence of 'd' is not disputed by me remember? It's the fact that you have no explanation for existence of 'd', nor can you explain how the 'd' got there, what rules govern the 'd' or anything. So that's why there is no science here.
The SUPPORT of my proposition is my process, presently.
And your reasoning is pre-scientific. I'm not suggesting this makes it wrong. I'm just saying it is not science.
Again, what would be be your educated guess, at what the source would be of consciousness.
An evolved brain seems the best explanation. I've studied this subject at university so it is an educated guess if ever there was one.
Is there even the smallest link you can identify using the scientific method
Sure. Remove the brain, remove consciousness. Damage the brain, damage consciousness. Ergo there is likely a connection between the organ and the phenomena.
You haven't explained what this has to do with the topic, incidentally.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8

Message 948 of 986 (784837)
05-24-2016 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 945 by Dawn Bertot
05-24-2016 12:32 AM

Re: more evidence that Dawn is also ignorant of the Bible.
Dawn Bertot writes:
jar writes:
It seems you are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of reality or science or the English language.
'Taint no such thing as Roman's 1:20 Dawn. Had you ever actually read the Bible you would know it was Romans (a plural of Roman) and not Roman's (a possessive of Roman).
This might seem nitpiking but it is actually the very heart of the matter; you seem totally unable to use words correctly.
Everything you do is nitpiking.
Anyone that knows your pattern knows that you troll along behind a few of your cronies actual arguments, then come in behind them like, some sort of cheerleader, only to follow,it up with insults, jibes and rudness
Your are to argumentation what an allergy is to the eyes or nose, an irritant, with no real purpose other than to annoy
Dawe Bertot
Yet you fail to address the heart of what I posted so let's try again.
Your only theory seems to be that some god or outside intelligent entity must be included.
Yet you never show any evidence of that god or outside intelligence.
Never do you provide the model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob to test for the existence of that god or outside intelligence. The best you have proposed is that it looks designed to you and so there must be a designer. You offer no reason there must be a god or outside intelligence designing what you say looks designed.
Worse, when you ask if "that looks designed" often the response your get is "No, it looks evolved."
The topic that YOU started was "The Science in Creationism".
Yet you have not shown any examples of science in Creationism.
You made a claim that that was what you were going to do but have utterly failed (as has every other Creationist) to show that there is any science in Creationism.
We still wait.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 949 of 986 (784839)
05-24-2016 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 944 by Dawn Bertot
05-24-2016 12:22 AM

Show Us The Evidence
Oh I think you do,ive,stated it 1000 times now. It's the science of investigation by observation of simple undeniable truths, that don't need involved processess. These help me establish my conclusion of a designer or creator
When you can demonstrate my processes needs to be involved to support my conclusion, then you will have,won the discussion
I don't know what you mean by "involved", but your "process" does need to involve showing us some evidence.
SHow us the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 950 of 986 (784840)
05-24-2016 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 944 by Dawn Bertot
05-24-2016 12:22 AM

It's the science of investigation by observation of simple undeniable truths, that don't need involved processess.
How do you know that they are truths?
And if they are undeniably true, then what kind of investigation needs to be done?
Why don't the processes need to be involved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009

Message 951 of 986 (784842)
05-24-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Dawn Bertot
05-07-2016 8:41 AM

Re: Show Me The Evidence
Yes indirect evidence puts me on an equal footing at least in a response to how it all started
Definitely no. What it does is that it puts you on an equal footing to those claiming the universe was created by an invisible giant otter named Neil.
Mod, DrA and Gen have been remarkably patient answering your silliness, if only you could do the same...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-07-2016 8:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 952 of 986 (784844)
05-24-2016 12:56 PM

Stand back officer, it's time for Science!
Detective Bertot: What is it officer?
PC Mod: Gunshot wound sir
DB: Hmm, yes I can see with my eyes and my consciousness that this is plainly a murder!
PC: You think so sir, could it not be....
DB: No no, a murder implies a murderer, and murderers murder, and this, being a murder a man who was murdered must have happened by no other means than a murdering murderer who murders the soon to be murdered.
PC: The thing is sir, there are three guns on the scene but only two has fired, one fired twice.
DB: That sounds like a complex gun fight. Gun fights have gunfighters. Somewhere there must be a gunfighter who gunfought with this gun fighter in a gun fight involving guns in a adversarial paradigm proving that a murder happened and a murderer was responsible.
PC: Yeah, but the erm...victim...was seen juggling three guns before the accident.
DB: Juggling guns is not easy. Clearly the juggler was the best juggler ever if he could juggle guns while engaged in a gun fight. The murderer who murdered him has taken away a talented man.
PC: Victim was also heavily drunk sir, couldn't seem to walk in a straight line. This doorman refused him entry because he was drunk and only wearing a T-shirt trying to get in some classy restaurant screaming about how he wasn't drunk and how he would prove it.
DB: Only a fool would juggle guns when drunk unless they were the greatest gun juggler of all time. Since a gun juggler aint no fool, clearly this is an Intelligent Gun Juggler to have done so. The murderer must have had a grudge against juggling guns in a T-shirt....
PC: Erm, I don't think that's....
DB: Silence, I'm doing Science over here! I'm investigating a murder, that makes it science. Now, find me the top 5 gun jugglers in the world...we need to teach that community they have a right to bare arms.

Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009

Message 953 of 986 (784909)
05-25-2016 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Faith
05-12-2016 5:46 PM

Re: In Summary
The Grand Canyon, which is of course what you mean by the scar, was carved into an enormous depth of relatively undisturbed layers of sediments which are understood by contemporary evolutionism to have been laid down excruciatingly slowly over hundreds of millions of years, which raises the question why no similar enormous scar was carved somewhere along the way. Why did all those hundreds of millions of years pass without such an event occurring, and then all at once huge disturbances occur that hadn't occurred before, cutting many canyons, carving all kinds of buttes and cliffs and whatnot, AFTER all the strata were there. The answer usually is a defiant "Why not?" but is that really a satisfactory reply to such a collection of facts? No, these facts are much better evidence for a single catastrophe that both built the layers and cut into them afterward, than they are for the prevailing theory.
Have you ever wondered about the incredible amount of meandering in the GC? How do you reconcile tremendous currents with that?
There is a lot of studies about meanderism - about the speed of water, how prone different strata is to eroding etc.
Several people who do science for living have rather eloquently explained to you how the method creationists employ is anything but scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by Faith, posted 05-12-2016 5:46 PM Faith has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 954 of 986 (784911)
05-25-2016 6:09 PM

Even though this is a free for all topic, I put it in summations mode which will begin in 3 days. To everyone involved in this 1000 post discussion, I ask that you give a summation of your position without attacking any other participants other words, provide a brief statement as to your overall belief and position on the matter and leave it at that. Dawn, if you can think of another topic, let me know and I might promote it...thank you all for your participation.

Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8

Message 955 of 986 (784912)
05-25-2016 7:38 PM

Once again it was clear that there is NO science in Creationism, no connection between Creationism and reality and only a slight connection to an extra Biblical interpretation that is actually refuted by what is really written in the Bible stories; and that Creationism as science of any nature has been abandoned and is opposed by all major Christian Denominations.
Despite repeated pleadings to show any model, method, evidence, process, procedure or thingamabob that might indicate any science in Creationism or designer or god, no such model, method, evidence, process, procedure or thingamabob was provided.
Creationism is simply Dead on Arrival, valueless except as an example of sloppy thinking and as worthless as Young Earth or Biblical Flood Geology.
The issue of Creation versus Evolution has been resolved and Creationism has rightly been tossed on the trash heap of history.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Inactive Member

Message 956 of 986 (784919)
05-25-2016 10:17 PM

This thread is like all Dawn Bertot threads. Dawn Bertot's logic and reasoning are generally to loose to make for adult conversation. But Dawn's most coherent rambling involved his same old theme that every kind of investigation and attempt to find answers must be considered science.
Which I think means that Dawn does score at least one point. It is pretty clear that folks like Dawn have not abandoned the discussion because they understand that science loving folks have won any argument. Dawn is able to see himself as having held his own.
Probably all for the best. We really don't want these guys to quit do we?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

Message 957 of 986 (784924)
05-26-2016 12:54 AM

After nearly 1000 posts , not all by our side of course, not a single argument, illustration or observation has been advance to demonstrate that any kind of investigation is not science, by the common usage if the word
That if that investigation is applied to the study of natural processes and it follows a reasoned, logical way of thinking and investigation, how could it be anything but science.
The secular fundamental humanist thinks he has actually dismissed this as science by arguing that it doesn't follow an involved process, ie the scientific method. Since, it is possible to actually know several things in fact by simple observation and deduction
The SFH, imagines that the simple is not science and that these are not actually truth
Of course there is no way for him or her to demonstrate this in reality, he can only imagine that it is not science and that truths dont actually exist.
Thus the science in creationismism, ID, or investigation, what ever you wish to call it, is not and need not be complicated. It is as warranted as any conclusion, that is sustained by even that type of evidence
Because the SFH, in reality rejects that any kind of actual truths exist , and these by simple observation, they assume they have likewise dismissed any evidence concerning the evidence in design and a designer.
So the science that supports creationism can't be reasoned away or imagined away, it must be demonstrated, it is actually less than any common usage of the word. Of course, That is an impossibility
Many simple truths exist. Consciousness, thought, existence, beauty, reality, design. They cannot be imagined or argued away.
It's hard to imagine how besides a select group of people called Secular fundamental Humanists, all other people can see these truths and realities. The vast majority of people have no need to reason away, that which is obvious.
So once again the SFH must imagines that they don't exist, he has no way to do it in reality however
So we have established that investigation is science, it need not be complicated to be true and that the intricacy in design is as obvious as any self evident truth
The SFH lives and dies by the scientific method, but when asked to provide a link of causality be tween the brain and consciousness, he says we have none. Is this because there is none or because the scientific is lacking as science
He tells us that if the brain ceases to function, that consciousness ceases, but this is only showing a chain of causality, like that akin to design and a designer. So did the SFH do science here or is his observation enough to count as science, because he has still not shown how the brain actually produces consciousness?
Even after demonstrating simple obvious truths do indeed exists and these truths are evidence,we are then required to show a chain of causality between the design and the designer. Yet the SFH cannot show us the first step in the chain of causality between the brain and causality and this is alledgedly all natural processes.
In other words all the elements are there in this Solely Natural process, so what's the problem in providing us this chain of causality it demands of everyone else?
No special pleading here however, just pointing to what constitutes evidence. Consciousness exists, yet no chain of causality, so should I believe it doesn't exist because there is no link of causality, or accept it as a fact and evidence Because it does exist
Design is of the same sort of evidence, it exists, yet it must not exist because I can't show a chain of causality. Who indeed is actually doing special pleading? Well if we follow the SFH line of reasoning, it's them.
We are told that to just SEE design is not enough, this makes my argument a human perspectuve. But that's not the argument is it?.
100 people can look at any given item in nature and give nearly 100 different answers as to its possible design or the fact that it was not designed.
So what is necessary is not to pay attention to human perspective, but to what is ACTUALLY taking place in REALITY. In this instance, purposeful, intricate order working harmoniously, down to the most minute detail, the like of which, is such that no human invention can rival designs characteristics.
We don't just imagine it, we don't just "SEE" it, it's actually there. So that there is actually a big difference in perception and reality
It's only when we MUST use some extremist uses of the word science, that design and purpose get illiminated as science
The science in creationism is demonstrated by both simple and involved investigation and from the type of evidence that establish simple truths. What else do we need?
Creationism begins and ends with simple truths. The science that is involved in ID or creationism, will never change, because it is a fixed, axiomatic truth that, has no possibility of contradiction.
One might as well imagine THINGS don't actually exist
So is there anything wrong with the Scientific Method as prescribed by these fellas, we'll frankly yes. It is extremist, it ignores evidence and it does not follow it's own rules, as we have clearly demonstrated, in the examples I have given.
The reason the SFH cannot find a link between the brain and consciousness, the brain and thought, natural processes and beauty and all the other things that should be EASILY detectable using the so-called scientific method, is that these observable truths are ditinguisable from strictly natural processes
"SECURE IS LIFE (consciousness, thought, awareness, beauty, etc) FROM MORTAL MIND, (the Scidentific Method)
Even though this is only a small sentiment from a song, doesn't it reflect, that which is in REALITY, and quite clearly the limitations of the Scientific Method and how one establishes truth and evidence?
For the Theist, the Christian and the believer, the consciouness, is a perfect example of a process that while functioning in harmony with the mechanism of the brain, it is itself quite clearly seperate from it's function. If it were it's link would be easily recognizable.
It is therefore proof positive that the consciouness can quite clearly survive death and even continue to exist.
Design and consciousnes are very simple observable truths that provide us clear evidence, of the existence of other than natural processes
Its not just that the SFH hasn't figured out how consciousness works or discovered its mechanism, it's simply that there is no link for them to work with from the start
Proof positive that truth exists independent of so called Scientific methods
The easily observable truth in design shows us and demonstrates to us that a designer exists, specific revelation in the form of God's Word tells us what science can't, that consciousness is a product and creation of This same designer
"And God The Lord God formed (designed) man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of LIFE (consciouness) and man became a LIVING (awareness and rationality) Soul"
But reality had already revealed this in the form of design and consciousness before it was ever put in written words, didn't it?
Genesis 2:7
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Message 958 of 986 (784925)
05-26-2016 1:38 AM

I have had a look. It looks designed to me. Therefore there must be an intelligent being who designed it.
That is the argument being put forward. Whatever else it may be it isn't scientific.

Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8

Message 959 of 986 (784939)
05-26-2016 9:35 AM

The Secular Humanist Fundamentalist nonsense.
One other issue that has been presented by Creationists is that there is some Secular Humanist Fundamentalist point of view versus some other (as expected from Creationists) unspecified point of view.
Of course that is simply yet another misrepresentation by Creationists.
Opposition to the false doctrine that Creationism is Science comes from theists as well as non-theists and in fact from every major US Christian Denomination as clearly shown by the Clergy Letter Project which is currently endorsed by over 13,000 Christian Clergy, over 500 Rabbis, over 400 Unitarian Universalists and even Buddhist monks.
Creationism is simply a false doctrine marketed under false colors as an attempt to get a very strange Christian minority's dogma introduced into Public Schools. It is nothing but carny con games and snake oil medicine-man spiels.
From the 1981 Pastoral Letter issued by The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta titled A Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution:
Legislation is pending before the Georgia State Legislature which calls for the public financing and teaching of Scientific Creationism as a counter understanding to Evolution, wherever the evolutionary view is taught in the public schools.
Scientific Creationism understands the cosmos and the world to have originated as the Bible describes the process in the opening chapters of Genesis.
The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system. A copy of the resolution is attached to this Pastoral.
If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science.
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 960 of 986 (784951)
05-26-2016 12:32 PM

Strange inverted reasoning from Darwin to Dawn for Da win
"In the Theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer, so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system, that IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express in a condensed form the essential purport of the Theory and to express in a few words all Mr Darwin's meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill." {Robert Mackenzie Beverley, 1868.}
Exactly! Darwin's "strange inversion of reasoning" was in fact a new and wonderful way of thinking; completely overturning the Mind-first way that John Locke "proved" and David Hume could see no way around... But the idea of treating Mind as an effect rather than as First Cause is too revolutionary for some -- an "awful stretcher" that their own minds cannot accommodate comfortably. This is as true today as it was in 1860, and it has always been as true of some of evolution's best friends as of its foes. {Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995}
Comprehension requires competence.
Competence does not require comprehension.
For instance, an ant does not need to understand how it knows where food is. It just walks towards food. It walks towards the food competently, without any comprehension as to why or how it walks where it walks.
Is it possible that the world once had no reasons? Tide comes in tide comes out to the benefit of nothing.
How did reasons happen? A grammatical nightmare, "How did why be?". The answer, I don't know exactly. Let's simply call it 'replicating information interacting with an environment '. At this point there were reasons for things. How did replicating information come about - no idea. From what I can tell it all comes down to shapes of molecules and crystal interacting with the shapes of other molecules and crystals, and the effects of these interaction etc.
This isn't science so much as philosophy. But once such a replicator existed reasons existed. The two concepts, I propose are interlinked. If the replicator could interact with the environment then slight changes in the replicator as it replicates imperfectly could have different effects on the environment. Say the replicator has a shape that when organic chemicals bump into it often creates a chemical, X, that lowers the pH level locally. Maybe that gives the replicator a little more time to gather materials for replication before. So now we can say 'the reason the replicator is that shape is so as to gather chemical X which extends its lifespan'. This philosophical account is based on science, but it is not intended to be considered a scientific account of history.
Thus reasons without entities to represent them, just like with ants. Competencies without comprehensions. Builders without brains, watchmakers without eyes.


What about the telic response? Is it science?
It is Aristotlean Science. Let's agree to that compromise, shall we? It's really just ancient Greek philosophy, but it's among the best stuff.
What are the causes of something? There are 4 Aristotlean causes for a thing. We look at life and we see there are 'reasons within reasons' (or order and purpose) and we presume there must be reasons there are reasons within reasons, so:
1) Material explanation (what is its substance): It is flesh.
2) Formal explanation (what makes it uniquely it): It moves around, it reproduces, it has parts that all work together towards keeping it moving around and reproducing, it has purposes, reasons, order, there are repeating patterns in reproduction cycle...
3) Efficient explanation (where did it come from, directly?): Ancestors.
4) Final (or telic) explanation (to what end? / cui bono?): erm, cos organic life is for erm, eating? No wait we're alive....erm, admiring? Who is watching but us? AHA! GOD. QED
That's the best they've got and unfortunately Dawn didn't even make it so far as Aristotlean science.
Dawn observed the reasons and purposes and order and defined this as 'design' and through the power of grammar conjugated this noun/verb into 'designer', relying heavily on the associative power of the meaning of words to make the implication that the 'designer' is the 'creator' and wanted to call this process science because its true.
Well the observations count, but observations aren't 'Creationist observations' or 'Evolutionist observations', they're just 'observations'. So these observations, scientifically made or not, are nothing to do with Creationist science. They're just science. Adding a linguistic trick to the end doesn't make it any more credible to me, though it fools others.

Modern Creationism

And Faith's argument? Do criticisms against evolution / flaws in the theory count as science. Yes they do. If they are criticisms against evolution and flaws in the theory. If not they may well be accurate criticisms, but they aren't against a scientific theory but against a philosophical theory that isn't held seriously by anybody.
The flood doesn't disprove evolution. It may be consistent with some stories. But stories about fictional things usually contain some real things. So if the flood did happen it wouldn't support Creationism per se, though it would verify one of the points in their historical narrative, and it would be interesting if it were true.
Faith's general position has strange tension in it. After the flood there were very few organisms alive, and these through the normal processes of microevolution populated the world in diverse species. OK. But at the same time microevolution results in a decrease in diversity, which is odd given the 2-6 individuals from most populations after the flood.
Where did all that genetic variety come from? From what I can tell Faith seems to think that every single gene that is any modern canidae(?) was in the 'dog kind' flood survivors and it was heterozygotic at every loci and that recombination is sufficient to explain the whole 'dog kind'.
So from Faith's perspective, when a split happens some genes are conserved but some genes go one way some go another. So you have 100 genes and a split happens. 97 genes go to both populations but population A gets 2 of the remaining and population B gets 1 of thers so they have 99 and 98 in each, and thus by this process the genes get 'diluted' to the point of no variability.
Evolution may suggest that it's more probable that the conserved genes are conserved in both lineages through inheritance, and the genes that are novel to one lineage or the other mutated at some point after the speciation split. Faith maintains that the mutation is so improbable so as to be discounted. The maths and observations disagree with her I think, and another thread has opened (Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation)

Replies to this message:
 Message 967 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-26-2016 11:03 PM Modulous has seen this message but 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