The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Oh! I know this is a bit off topic but the Eureka just hit me. Brad is a computer program! A natural language parser someone is inputting some of these articles and then posting them here! Cool, kewl? Well, a tiny bit amusing.lfen

The way I see this is that scientists are doing science to answer a great many question in many fields. To do this they use observation, experimentation, math, modeling etc. Evolution is being used in such diverse fields as astronomy, geology, and biology because it is serving the function that a scientific theory is supposed to. It helps organize the data, it provides explanatory models that then generate further experiments, explorations etc. Scientist will drop the ToE if and when it not longer works, when it's falsified.
Creationist seem to rarely take into account the amount of science being done. Some scientist are doing brilliant work, others mediocre, and others trivial to bad.Creationist seem to regard science as another "bible" of false revelation that needs only to have one thing wrong and then like the fundamentalist claim "if one thing in the bible is not true how can any of be true" ToE will be disproved and the true faith in an old old book supposed the true book will be defended, unless you are mormon, or muslim, etc.Religion is an old and to some humans an emotionally appealing way of thinking about self, life, and the world. Science is a different approach. Religion is a useful tool for controlling people or oneself by emotional beliefs. Science is a useful tool for knowledge and technology.Creation "science" is not coming out of the experimental work, it's not a theory that is being used by productive scientists to advance science. It's an attempt by those with emotional investment in a world view to defend their desire for the bible to be literally true by attempting to falsify the current paradigns of science. That is a religious undertaking and not a scientific one. Science doesn't do a good job of supporting our emotional agendas. Creation "science" to the extent it's religion and not science is useful to religionist to support their belief in their ancient books.lfen

JT,Genetics holds many problems and that makes it a good area to do science in. Relgion and science as activities arise from similiar human needs to understand and expand control. But they are very different approaches. Particularly revealed religions that take the word of one or more humans that they speak for god or have written for god has a very different attitude towards the universe than science has.Falsifying a theory or contradictory findings doesn't disprove science. Science doesn't make a claim that at one point in history a particulary verbal account is the eternal truth. Science is a process not an authoritarian pronouncement held to be immune from fault or criticism.You have chosen a very interesting area to study, may you make some interesting and useful discoveries.lfen

JTWould you accept putting it this way? Not all religions posit creationism, or YEC. That is not all religious are creationist, but aren't all creationist are religious?lfen

JTWould you accept putting it this way? Not all religions posit creationism, or YEC. That is not all religious are creationist, but aren't all creationist religious?lfen

Ned,This is not the first time I've gotten over focused on creationism and religion and written as though they were identical. I don't hold that to be the case. So not all religionist hold a belief in creationist YEC etc. I did ask JT if he would accept saying "all creationist are religious". There may be an exception though I've not seem them on this list. It would be interesting to see a thread for non religious creationism.I did write:

quote:

---

The way I see this is that scientists are doing science to answer a great many question in many fields. To do this they use observation, experimentation, math, modeling etc. Evolution is being used in such diverse fields as astronomy, geology, and biology because it is serving the function that a scientific theory is supposed to. It helps organize the data, it provides explanatory models that then generate further experiments, explorations etc.

---

I've got to write a better expression of a number of ideas that I think don't get enough attention from creationist. I get the impression that many think ToE is something developed to refute their religion. I didn't want to go near the question of "what is reality". I wanted to point out that ToE has generated a lot of good science, it is a theory that "earns it's keep" and that is am important function of a good scientific theory that it generate testable hypothesis and that it provides a framework to advance knowledge.
This might be something someone wants to argue in another thread.
And "what is reality" would be another thread.I just wanted to point out that ToE is at the present a functioning theory whose value can be shown not by "reality" but by how it facilitates science and medicine among other things. I don't see creationist science generating much good science. If we abandoned evolution theories in biology, geology, astronomy etc. I doubt creationism could provide a paradign that would offer perspectives that lead to a lot of good expermental designs.lfen

Well the overwelming majority of religious humanists are evos, but you went the wrong way. Not all evo's are religious humanists, some are atheist, some agnostic, some theist, some deist, some christian, or buddhist. So there is a wider representation of religious beliefs.I would be interested if anyone can cite scientific work being done in a creationist paradign that is not simply attempting refutations of ToE. Not that testing the theory that way is a bad thing, but I'm interested in any creative science growing out of creationism. Medical breakthroughs? or even predictions that are verified and or explain something that ToE hasn't explained.lfen

JT,I'm struggling here to find a language of useful disctinctions. I get the impression that "Truth" is in some fundamantal sense the crux of your interest. I'm noting that as capital "T" "Truth". I know that that is my interest. I guess anymore I see science as being very helpful as scientists explore various truth, small "t". But I find I need philosophy to deal with discussions of "Truth" which would take us off topic here I think. My personal interest lies along the lines of what in Zen Buddhism is called "direct seeing into one's nature".For me consciousness is the fundamental mystery that tends to get ignored by western religion and is only beginning to be addressed by science. To me life is a complex behaviour of molecules but doesn't break any of the "laws" of chemistry or physics. For me the question is whether consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe in the way energy and space are, or is it an emergent property in the way that life is.You are doing a good job clarifying your meaning I think.lfen

For a start that works for me. You are asking a what is for me a very important fundamental question but I don't know how to answer it briefly. I'll try this basic introduction of the meditation the Buddha is said to have used to awaken. It's called vipassana. One notices as much about ones experience as possible, the sensations and thoughts without getting lost in them. The question might be what is this phenomena that I am at the experiental level. What really am I? So instead of looking to an external sources that gives a verbal answer you look deeply into how you are actually experiencing your being. "explains" are you saying consciousness is not a mystery for Christians?If you are saying that I would say that explaining consciousness away by calling it spirit is what I meant by ignoring it. A few of the contemplatives like the John the Divine seem interested in it though.By western religion I mean centrally but not exclusively Judaism, Christianity, Islam, LDS, Bahai, on and on, etc with the emphasis on the revealed truth aspect which I characterize as "God told me to tell you how to live" this replacing the earlier "God told us to kill all you cause he is giving us this land" scenerio. I know I'm being a obnoxious in this characterization of revealed religion and I don't say it to offend you, but you can see I have a hard time tolerating revealed religion, or as my brother recently said to me, "I know you have a thing against organized religion but would you listen to what I'm saying here."lfen

Well coming back after 3 days doesn't prove he was dead. There are accounts of people coming back after 3 days or so. There was a book about that I read years ago called THE ROMEO ERROR as in Romeo mistaking that Juliet was dead. I'm not saying that was what happened or not, but 3 days is doable. But just for an example, buried and after 100 days? No way.Well, if you want to check the Jesus Puzzle site, Earl Doherty makes a very interesting case that Christianity was influenced by Greek mystery religions such as Mithrasism.I don't accept the Bible as literally true or inerrant. I also am not even sure if Jesus was a historical person or a myth. My brother does believe there was a historical enlightened teacher. But hey, my little brother has always been younger than me so what does he know!lfen

Organsim? singular? Sas, or others better versed in genetics can correct me on this, but the way I think about it is that mutation and reproduction are done by individuals, evolution is what happens to populations.Way back when I studied biology the effect of the environment put selection pressure on populations such that different members might reproduce more or less or not at all. There was a whole arguement that sometimes sexual reproduction wasn't as good because of the less than fit individuals produced, but that over the long haul with changes in environment it's better to have some individuals who aren't as well adapted who carry genes that might prove advantages if the environment changes.That 6000 year old earth thing gets you into geology and astro physics, etc. All I can do is shake my head and say "good luck", for you will surely need it, as they've got lots of numbers over there in that group.lfen

"I don't know if you meant that to be humourous, but I thought it was funny for some reason."Yeah I did. I threw that in cause I didn't want to come across as heavy. Though I must admit I have my rabid moments. I thought your take on discovering you weren't "omniscient" was well done.I don't know a lot about Christian contemplatives which is why I wrote "seemed". I have read Bernadette Roberts' books and am so impressed with her. They are in the libraries around here. She is a contemporary woman, raised Catholic and spent some years in a convent. She felt she reached a stage that St. John the Divine described as unitary, which is where a person has accepted the will of God and is at peace with it.Now what she calls the will of God, I would just call "What Is". But then years later married and raising children she entered a new state. Reading it I recognized she was describing an awakening like the Buddha's. She understands this in a christian sense but this probably wouldn't fit into the way fundamentalist Christians define the religion. I think about it so in that sense it's easy. And it's so slippery and difficult I haven't begun to figure it out. But it is the crux of the nondual approach in which the answer in not "out there" but the answer is what or who is asking the question. The mystery is that intimate, it's right there in the very act of being our self. But it is not what we take to be ourselves because anything we can conceive of as our "self" is an object to us. So who is this "I" for whom all the rest is an object? This answer is not verbal though it can be pointed at with words.I don't accept the notion of "supernatural". I do think that there maybe a transcendent aspect to the universe to wit: consciousness. It could be that consciousness is an emergent property of the universe like life. Or it could be the fundamental mystery closest to the source. I don't have a problem accepting evolution. I will be honest and admit I can't yet grasp how nerves releasing neurtransmitter in arrays of complex interactions can create consciousness. But that may just be a personal limitation on my part. I tend to think of consciousness as fundamental to the universe.lfen

btw, I'm in Oregon are you by chance in Washington State?Now to quickly CMA. I do think it's easier to argue evolution than to argue with geologists and even harder astrophysists. The astro guys particulary because of all the physics means they have got lots of hard numbers and their theories are like mathamatical proofs and all. Not that they are always right but the standards of argument are mathamatically challenging. A least to me.And as soon as you say 6000 year old earth you don't only get into geology, you get into the stars and speed of light and all those calculations. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Take care. I myself gotta get some sleep.lfen

JT,What I mean by consciousness fundamental to the universe is something like this. At present physics as I understand it has energy/matter and space/time as the fundamental qualities of the universe. With those 4 elements everyting else derives. Physicists, as you and I, are conscious and look at the fundamentals and study them. At more complex levels chemists, biologists etc do the same. Consciousness is present as they study but barely present in what they study. It seems to me that something very important is not being included. I understand why, but this seems a profound limitation to science's discription of the universe at present. Until we can account for consciousness our discription is seriously lacking. I can explain the supernatural in natural terms using science but not consciousness.At this point science has little to say on what consciousness is. Crick and Damasio have some hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent quality of brain organization. It may prove to be the case.
The other posiblity is that consciousness is an irreducible fundamental of the universe like energy. It could be an as yet undiscovered property of energy/matter or even space/time though I don't see how at this point.I am interested in the eastern nondual notion that consciousness is the primordial principle of the universe. I've come across a few references to quantum mechanics that suggests some "consciousness" in quantum interactions. I think that is speculative. I think western science and western religions both tend to take consciousness for granted in their thinking about the universe. I don't know if Godel's thereom about having at least one undefined term means consciousness can't ever be defined without the system becoming self contradictiory can be applied here. If creation science is willing to let the term "designer" be undefined could it avoid self contradiction? I don't know.Western Washington state, well, I'm in western Oregon and love rain and trees having grown up in eastern Oregon with the cold cold winters, which I do not like.lfen

quote:

---

Anyway, what all entities do you think are concious?

---

I don't know. I could quote different traditions or authorities but I'm not sure. I'm trying to work this out myself, like learning math or something, I want to be able to do it myself and only then will I really understand it. Consciousness though is for me at this time the crucial mystery, the core problem that engages me.The advaita position of Ramana Maharshi is that it's all conscious, which is to say God except for our egos. Kind of like saying God's imagination is What IS, it's real and the only thing that isn't real is what humans imagine, and what we think we are is only something we have imagined and so that is the only unreal thing.I think though this is a third approach to knowledge. It's not by revelation, nor objective scientific experimentation etc, but by directly investigating our self-experience until we know what this consciousness that is us is. This was the approach used and taught by the Buddha and some of those influenced by him down to this day.I do think the work started by Crick or Damasio is important. It's important to push to see if consciousness can be accounted for as an emergent property of complex organisms, or some sort of self referring information system. I think such work may help define consciousness perhaps more in a negative sense of eliminating what it can't be but perhaps shed light on what it is. The physicist Erwin Schrdinger said, "Consciousness is a singular for which there is no plural". Someday quantum mechanics may shed some more light on how consciousness functions.lfenlfen