Standards of Evidence

True, but other methods are equally objective. Your opinion is noted. That is because Creationism is not a theory and it never claimed to be a theory. Your straw man is noted. Creationism is an identification process and explanation of the same set of scientifc data that is available to everyone. This comment says Evolution is objective. Since you are an evolutionist we know you believe this to be true.Objective persons know Evolution is not objective since its presuppositions only allow one interpretation and conclusion. Both Creationism and Evolution interpret and explain the same scientific evidence. Both use antithetic presuppositions. The Creationist interpretation and explanation of scientific data is superior to Evolution explanation and interpretation because ours corresponds to reality unlike yours. Any fact produced by prediction and experimentation is better explained by the Creationist paradigm. Since 45 percent of all Americans are Creationist it looks like we have a lot of people who agree with our interpretation and explanation of scientific data regardless of who produces it and regardless of which standard or methodology. How does the Big Bang contradict Creationism?Ray

Specifically which 'other methods'?
On what criteria are you determining that they are 'equally objective'? Just opinion? No. Reasoned argument? Yes.In message 58 I wrote If you are claiming other forms of evidence to be equal to verification by prediction then you need to explicitly name these forms of evidence and explain on what basis they are equally objective and equally rigorous as tests of theory.That is kind of the whole point of this thread.Sweeping assertions aside can you defend your claims?Your ongoing failure to put any counter arguments forwards has been noted and is frankly beginning to look like a major weakness in your position. You tell me?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, this isn't true, is it? Creationists often claim vociferously to have a theory, as you must know perfectly well.Look, here's one.

quote:

---

A Theory of Creation

​

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

​

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

​

A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism”including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup”is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”

---

Couldn't you guys just get together in a room somewhere and decide what lies you're going to tell? But this isn't actually true, is it? Which is why you cannot name these imaginary "presuppositions" and say how they allow only one conclusion. This is not true. Creationists ignore most of the evidence and continually make stuff up. For example, your claim that the Egyptian Book of the Dead called the Great Pyramid "the pillar of Enoch". This isn't evidence, this is made-up stuff. Scientists look at the evidence, you look at fantasies of your own invention. And yet curiously enough the people whose research actually produces scientific data disagree with you.Possibly they know something you don't, like what the scientific data actually is. "Fact produced by prediction"?Sheesh.I'm sure if this meant something it would be untrue, but it doesn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I am in the course of establishing with CFO that verification by prediction is THE most rigorous and objective form of evidence for a scientific theory.
He is so far refusing to acknowledge this but has as yet presented no argument as to why he believes this not to be true or presented any alternative forms of evidence as equal or superior.As evolution is effectively a theory that describes retrospective events the use of prediction as a verification tool is in practice more difficult than it is in many other branches of science.Do you have any examples of prediction as verifictation of theory for the theory of evolution?The obvious example would seem to be the 'tree of life' relationships originally derived from fossil evidence being verified by genetics.What more detailed examples of 'predictive evidence' for evolution are there that can be used in this debate?

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but perhaps that's another topic. Well, for example, specific intermediate forms have been predicted. Huxley predicted Archaeopteryx in rather precise detail (I have a book which reproduces his drawing of the skeleton ... spookily accurate). Bloom predicted the intermediate jaws of reptile-mammal intermediates. The discoverers of Tiktaalik knew just where to look for it. Whales with legs were predicted before they were found. Apemen were predicted before they were found. And so on, and so forth.Meanwhile, chimeras which would contradict evolution (griffins, winged pigs, dragons) remain in short supply.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think it is broadly on topic and am happy to digress slightly in the name of educating myself anyway.
I am perfectly open to the idea if you are willing to explain briefly?I guess my thinking was that in other areas of science you actually have the opportunity to create experiments that replicate the situation under consideration. You can therefore make direct predictions on the outcome of specific directly relevant experiments.Dealing with a theory that largely relates to the formation of various life forms over millions of years ago will obviously lead to the examination of events that are not directly reproducable in the lab.For this reason it would seem more difficult to apply verification of predicted results as a tool for evaluating the theory of evolution. Directly and without additional interpretation at least.In that respect evolution and cosmology would seem to be in much the same boat.In terms of the EvC debate I think it is very relevant indeed.CFO has already agreed that the whole basis of his creationist argument is founded on the notion that evolution and creation are equally valid interpretations of the same scientific data.If it can be shown that evolution is verified by prediction, as well as sheer explanatory power, then it pretty much blows his whole argument out of the water.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

True, but we have a wealth of observations which we can predict.Other people have a much harder time of it. Consider the problems in finding solutions to the equations of General Relativity, or the poor old quantum physicists, who keep on having to build bigger and bigger steel donuts to do an experiment worth doing.

quote:

---

I guess my thinking was that in other areas of science you actually have the opportunity to create experiments that replicate the situation under consideration. You can therefore make direct predictions on the outcome of specific directly relevant experiments.

---

There have been experiments done using short-lived organisms. For
example, lactose utilization in bacteria and ethanol tolerance in fruit flies. I gather that the results agreed nicely with the predictions of the evolution model.The creos will no doubt find ways to cavil about these.In my opinion, since the evolutionary algorithm is validated by these experiments, it is now up to the creos to show in detail how the algorithm is invalid for other organisms and on other time scales if they want to dispute these results.Of course, even if they can do so, they still need to show positive evidence for their own model.

I'm inclined to think that there is a rather too narrow view being taken of "observations". We make "observations" when we examine the scene of a crime (a fav example ). This is not examining light coming from the crime scene at the time of the crime but that is clearly not the only kind of observations we except everyday.We observe the physical objects in the scene, their condition and so on. From these we are perfectly prepared to draw very firm conclusions in some cases.With geology and paleontology and others we are able to make observations left by events in the past. We are able to draw conclusions from them and make extrapolations (predictions). These predictions may or may not be borne out by further observations. This is not, in my mind, less strong than work done in a lab. The difference is that the lab work is usually highly simplified which makes it less susceptible to confusion and other explanations. It also makes for some risk in carrying lab work to the real, messy world.With enough real world observations outside a lab we can arrive at conclusions with a high degree of certainty. We may be able to have more confidence that they apply in the real world than extrapolated, simplified lab work.

I do partly agree.However the discussion I have been having with CFO (who seems to have dissappeared) was about degrees of objectivity.It strikes me that there is more interpretation required of real world observational evidence and that this interpretation is driven by the context of the theory under consideration.Imagine a lab experiment where a particular measurement has been predicted. If the prediction is verified it will have major implications for a far reaching and socially contentious theory.It is quite possible for a team of scientists to be given the task of making that measurement as accurately as possible without ever knowing of the theory in question or the implications of it's veracity.The verification of the theory and any interpretation of what the theory implies can be totally seperated.Can the same be said of, for example, of fossil evidence for evolution?
Or does this need to be analysed with knowldge of and in the context of the theory in question?I find myself in the bizzarre position of doing CFO's job for him...

Do observations require more interpretation than, for example, measurements?Is that not partly why creationists are able to still even pretend that they have a case regards evolution?See reply to nosy above for more detail on observations vs measurements.

If they want to claim a theory which should actually be considered to be a genuine rival to evolution they will need more than positive evidence.They will need positive evidence that is equivelent or better than the evidence for evolution.To be considered comparable I would argue that they would need to demonstrate theories verified by prediction rather than a bunch of ad-hoc and dispirate 'plausible' explanations.

Using the example you give:
Evolution predicts changes in the makeup of the populations of living things over time. (not feeling a need to contrast this with any other view ).Does the fossil record show differing populations of life at different times in the past? How can one interpret the observation of the fossil record? I think we might need to define "interpretation" but I think that more often in the messy real world what is required is more care in considering what one is seeing. We don't control enough of the variables to get the signal clear of the noise a lot of the time. Is this "interpretation" when we sort out the mess? That is why I suggested that the real world "lab" may require a much, much larger number of data points before we can see what is going on. However, when we have them we have something that I would consider to be very competitive with lab results that have been replicated a small number of times.Using the above example; one fossil, 50 fossils, even a 1,000 observations of fossils in situ would leave a lot of room for "interpretation". However, millions paints a clearer picture with the signal very clear over the noise and is what we do to arrive at a conclusion still what we mean by "interpretation"?

Instincts tell me this is getting remote from the topic.I would look upon "differing populations of life at different times in the past" as being the primary evidence supporting the fact of evolution. Doesn't this information generally predate the development of the theory of evolution, rather than being predicted by the ToE? Of course, I think that to some degree both can be true.If I had the talent and energy, I'd spin this stuff off into a new topic. It's been a long time since we had a "Fact of Evolution" topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

What you have done is take evolution in it's broadest sense -i.e. And rightly state that the sheer amount of real life observational evidence more than amply supports this broad view.However the trouble with this sweeping brush approach is that it does leave the door open for other broad "interpretations" in a way that a specific measurable predicted quantity (for example) does not.Because of this creationists have the opportunity to come up with their own version of events that they can “convincingly” then claim is an equally valid interpretation of the physical evidence (involving floods and whatnot).It then requires intelligent analysis of the physical data (of which most people do not have access) to determine which theory better explains the data, giving yet more opportunity for disagreement and even deception.The obvious separation of what the observational or experimental data IS and what that experimental/observational data actually MEANS that predictive evidence usually allows has to some degree been lost.Evo is supported by a huge wealth of data most of which is predicted broadly by theoryBUT the fact that a huge amounts of such evidence are required to support the theory does, in itself, suggest that each individual evidence is inferior in nature than to a single argument clinching specific measurable predicted result (e.g. the detection of the CMBR)In terms of “standards of evidence”
If there were a hierarchy of forms of evidence I do think the sort of measurable specific prediction most often found in physics would lie above the sort of predictive evidence that is being put forwards for evolution.