Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Three models for the origin of the universe
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 19 of 41 (112503)
06-02-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stellatic
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


Why stop at 3?
I would agree with your statement that "Science can NOT make a distinction between these three models". The first two are matters of religion and not of science. How could science possibly hope to address questions about something for which there exists not one shred of evidence, nor is there likely to ever be short of divine intervention? For this reason I would have to disagree with your conclusion, the first two models are not science at all.
I do have a follow up question. You did say you weren't entertaining any so feel free to disregard it.
I'm not sure why you decided these were the only three "viable" models. I know I have seen others. In fact just yesterday I saw one from Custard here:
http://EvC Forum: If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it? -->EvC Forum: If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?
The question is: If I included the link above as #4 and Kent’s Last Thursdayism as #5 on your list isn't your proposition still just as valid/invalid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stellatic, posted 04-21-2004 10:29 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 5:08 AM bob_gray has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 25 of 41 (113956)
06-09-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stellatic
06-09-2004 5:08 AM


Agreed, mostly
Stellatic writes:
I'm just wondering, but why do you think the third one is science and not religion? Most scientists use Poppers definition of a scientific theory: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. )
Is model (3) better testable? I don't see why, but if you do, please explain why.
This is an excellent question and in rereading my post I see that I contradicted myself. When I wrote the previous post I misstated my point. I confused the idea of the development of the universe (after creation) with its creation. I would have to agree with you that all of these theories are equally unverifiable by science and as such I would not classify any of them as science. I believe they all fall into the class of religion.
With this stated I will give you a loose definition of what I see as religion. Religion (in my opinion) is a belief in the origins of the universe and our place in it. Religions for the most part are matters of faith and can’t be verified/falsified.
Model (3) is not testable any more than (2) and I agree with your conclusion that they are indistinguishable. Once you get the universe rolling I think that we both agree on the mechanisms by which it developed.
By the way, did you know the author of Ardism (J.R.R. Tolkien) was a christian? His works and also this 'creation story' are heavily based on his catholic background.
Yes, I was aware of this. (12 years of Catholic school will do that to you ) Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were both Christians of some stripe and if I recall correctly they were good friends. Their faith influenced their writings and I would venture to say in a positive way. They were both adept at using their beliefs in their writing without being preachy.
I think the post Message 22 basically answers your final question.
It did indeed. And I find that I am almost in complete agreement with you except that I would restate your proposition:
Proposition
Science can NOT make a distinction between model (2) and model (3). No conceivable event could favour/verify/falsify one of them and not the other one. Thus neither has scientific status.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 5:08 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:28 PM bob_gray has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 26 of 41 (113962)
06-09-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stellatic
05-25-2004 7:43 AM


One point of contention
I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.
I think there is an important point in YEC that you may be missing. As far as I can tell the entire premise of YEC comes from a literal reading of the bible. Unfortunately many of the events they wish to claim happen simply have no evidence to back them up and in most cases are clearly false. The most obvious being a flood which covered all the land. Another point of YEC is that the TOE is false. God created kinds and after that you get variation within a kind but nothing new. In this respect I think that YEC is significantly different than OEC since the latter allows (and in fact embraces) the TOE. Unless you wander into the realm of "Intelligent Design" which is once again religion. But that is a different discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stellatic, posted 05-25-2004 7:43 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 7:25 PM bob_gray has replied
 Message 34 by Stellatic, posted 06-16-2004 7:13 AM bob_gray has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 32 of 41 (114162)
06-10-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stellatic
06-10-2004 12:28 PM


Re: Agreed, mostly
Could we include model (1) again in your new proposition?
Sure, you could certainly include model (1) in my proposition. For that matter you could include any story which explained the inception of the universe. You would also need to include the "extrauniversal egg hatched the universe theory". The point is that science can not and does not try to explain why the universe is here. Science tries to explain what the universe is doing now that it is here. So long as you will agree that the scientific theories we have today are the most scientific models for explaining the existing universe you can have whatever belief you want about where it came from.
Or would it be more scientific than (2) and (3)?
Once again I will reiterate what I said in post #26: OEC doesn't stop at when the universe was created it tries to explain everything thereafter as well. In that respect it is clearly wrong and unscientific. There is no way for me to distinguish between the universe created 14 B years ago and the universe created 6000 years ago with the appearance and behavior of a universe created 14 B years ago (or one created last Thursday for that matter). This is no way invalidates the TOE (just to name one random scientific theory ) or any other scientific theory. If you want to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago that is fine but animals still evolve, apples still fall down, information does not leave black holes and the universe behaves the way it does regardless of what some shepherds thought 3000 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stellatic, posted 06-10-2004 12:28 PM Stellatic has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 33 of 41 (114164)
06-10-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
06-09-2004 7:25 PM


Omphalism???
I agree. His OEC and YEC propositions only vary by a number 6000 vs. 14,000,000,000 (which shows that he doesn't understand "mainstream" OEC). My bottom line is that I don't care what he believes about the origin of the universe, the fact is that it behaves the way we see it with no apparent/provable outside interference. As long as the "why" question doesn't show up in a science class I have no beef with a persons beliefs.
BTW: What does this mean? Omphalism
I looked it up but couldn't find a good definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 7:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2004 8:27 AM bob_gray 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