But the fact that evolutionary science can only reckon with naturalistic explanations does not mean that only those explanations are true. This would be like an automobile mechanic claiming that jet aircraft cannot be real because, after all, he does not possess the knowledge or tools to work on them. Evolutionists say they lack the tools to test and evaluate theories that are not strictly naturalistic, but this does not mean such theories are necessarily false.
The irony here is that evolutionists make naturalism unscientific according to their own criterion of testability. This is because naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that are allowed. Imagine if the species were designed. What if the DNA code, the bat’s sonar system and the many other biological wonders were created by a miracle. If this were true, it would not be allowed within evolutionary science. Evolutionists would forever be trying to figure out how such marvels evolved. And they would continue to insist that evolution is a fact.
Of course evolutionists are not fooling anyone but themselves. When you hear an evolutionist claim that evolution is a fact you know there is an commitment to naturalism underwriting the claim.
Digging holes
But it doesn’t help to point out these problems to evolutionists, as I did here and here. They just dig themselves in deeper and deeper. One evolutionist in the know made this comment:
Why don’t you just explain, in simple language, why scientists should adopt your view (which is to insert miracles wherever you don’t understand something),
In simple language, that is not my view. Evolutionists make metaphysical arguments for why evolution is a fact, and when you point out their logical fallacies and scientific errors they blame you for introducing the metaphysics. It seems the evolutionist always blames you for what they do.
In fact I discussed two legitimate ways evolutionists can do science without sacrificing their commitment to naturalism. But as usual, the evolutionist rejects them for they strip away his metaphysics. It’s no fun following the rules if you can’t have your way. The evolutionist continues:
Oh, and please give us some method for including/excluding miracles in science. We're still waiting.
As I’ve already explained, it is not necessary to include/exclude miracles (using Rene Descartes approach, for example). The evolutionist continues:
Without that all you are giving us is meaningless complaining.
Meaningless complaining? Evolutionists violate scientific logic, you point it out, and its dismissed as meaningless complaining. As I pointed out here, the evolutionary claims are not scientific. Evolutionists can modify their approach and join science, or just blame the messenger and continue with their metaphysics.
Remarkable! You wrote a whole post that was actually relatively accurate - at least at the beginning. I'm so proud of you!
ReplyDelete"They don’t know how to determine if naturalistic explanations don’t work. Therefore science must be limited to naturalism and, indeed, anything else is a science stopper."
Pretty much, yes!
"But the fact that evolutionary science can only reckon with naturalistic explanations does not mean that only those explanations are true."
True.
"Evolutionists say they lack the tools to test and evaluate theories that are not strictly naturalistic, but this does not mean such theories are necessarily false."
Again, true.
"The irony here is that evolutionists make naturalism unscientific according to their own criterion of testability. This is because naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that are allowed."
No, not evolutionists!!!!! SCIENTISTS!!!!!!
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!
If you'd put 'scientists' instead of 'evolutionists', then yes, you would indeed be correct.
It is an assumption (made by EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE, NOT JUST EVOLUTION, IN CASE YOU NEED THIS POINTING OUT EVERY FRIKKIN' TIME) that the world works on entirely naturalistic laws. And this assumption may possibly be wrong.
But here's the thing - and I'll say this again because it really does need stressing again and again in the hopes that just maybe, despite your shocking track record, it'll sink in - this is a criticism applicable to THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE!!!!! You cannot just single out ToE with this accusation. It is indeed true of evolution, but it is also true of the theory of gravity, of germ theory, of atmoic theory, and every other scientific theory. What you are attacking, in short, is science, not merely evolution.
Secondly, science WORKS. The fact that science is so damned productive (we have cars, spacecrafts, the internet, heart bypasses, cloning, gene sequencing, the list goes on and on) is a reasonable indication that science has a reasonable grasp on how the world actually works. If it was so fundamentally flawed then it would be a very strange point that it was also so productive.
Finally, how are we to determine between two miraculous explanations of observed data? If we see, for example, an apple fall from a tree, how are we to determine if invisible angels pushed it down, or if a fairy put a spell on it to make it fall, or if the apple suddenly spawned a consciousness and DECIDED to fall? How are we to test any of these? The scientific method is certainly insufficient for the job. It cannot test them. It cannot prove that they are wrong. It will simply assume they are wrong because they are not naturalistic explanations.
So what you need to come up with is an entirely new method of performing science - a proposed method of working which incorporates the ability to test miraculous and supernatural forces/agents. Because until you do, insisting that science SHOULD test for these things is as hollow as it is vapid.
Science (again that's SCIENCE, not just EVOUTION) does not disprove miracles and magic. It just doesn't allow for them. That IS science.
"Evolutionists can modify their approach and join science..."
Yet again you insinuate ToE operates differently from the rest of science. It's enough to make a rational person weep. ToE does NOT behave differently. EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE ASSUMES NATURALISM!!! IT IS THIS ASSUMPTION OF NATURALISM WHICH MAKES ToE SCIENCE!!!!!
I really don't know how to say it any other way.
Is English not your first language? Are you having trouble with these words? I'll try to say it in a different language if you like...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast try. Sorry. Fumble fingers.
ReplyDeleteThe "explained" link is broken. It's supposed to point to What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism. It's also the same page linked to by the first "here" link in the previous paragraph. Just in case anyone cares.
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that science' brainchild, technology, produces practical, useful results owes absolutely nothing to methodological naturalism.
Rather it owes much to the founding fathers'(of modern science) grounding in theistic conceptualizations of existence, ie encompassing bother immaterial and material dimensions aspects of reality. To envision something that is real but immaterial could never have risen out of an atheist' mind.
As for magic and miracles, St. Augusting put it nicely when he said (paraphrasing) miracles are only miracles because we don't yet understand the science behind them. Keep digging and we will eventually know how spirits operate in the material dimension- "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."
Science does not assume naturalism since, natural cannot be adequately defined. What science does is assume observability and comprehensibility. These are the only prerequisites it needs to be productive.
Finally, do not mistake a theistic apriori assumption of intelligent agency as a science-stopping conclusion. Rather, it is a positive proposition that is immensely more productive than spontaneity and purposelessness.
Poor proofreading on my last comment. Revised below:
ReplyDeleteAs for magic and miracles, St. Augusting put it nicely when he said (paraphrasing) "Miracles are only miracles because we don't yet understand the science behind them". If we keep digging and we will eventually know how spirits operate in the material dimension- / "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."
Steve -
ReplyDelete"The fact that science' brainchild, technology, produces practical, useful results owes absolutely nothing to methodological naturalism."
Untrue. Technology is built on our scientific understanding of the world, which is indeed build on the assumption of naturalism.
"To envision something that is real but immaterial could never have risen out of an atheist' mind."
Pardon? That makes no sense.
"Science does not assume naturalism since, natural cannot be adequately defined. What science does is assume observability and comprehensibility. These are the only prerequisites it needs to be productive."
Again, untrue. Science absolutely assumes naturalism.
Take any observation, say an apple falling from a tree. There is no way we can rule out miraculous/magical explanations. We cannot rule out angels pushing the apple down, or the apple sparking a consciousness and deciding to fall. But they are dismissed out of hand because science deals only in naturalism. Science is an explanation of how the natural world works, without reference to the un-/sub-/super- natural.
"Finally, do not mistake a theistic apriori assumption of intelligent agency as a science-stopping conclusion."
No? What predictions can be drawn from ID? What support can we find for it? How do we advance if we suppose ID? How is it at all productive? The almost total lack of scientific papers drawn up by anyone actively advocating ID kinda belies your point here. The scientific output of the ID community has been absolutely pitiable to say the least.
"Rather, it is a positive proposition that is immensely more productive than spontaneity and purposelessness."
That's nice. Who is advocating spontaneity? And what has purpose to do with science?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou have confirmed what I always suspected. The evolutionary delusion is not a product of the human mind, but is a delusion cast by God. Hence it is unbreakable. Your efforts at educating them is pointless. The value of your blog is in informing the open minded people who can weigh the facts.
.
"You have confirmed what I always suspected. The evolutionary delusion is not a product of the human mind, but is a delusion cast by God."
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha ha! Oh that's precious, it really is.
Psst, you're supposed to pretend you're not religious! That's what Cornelius does. Otherwise his chief accusation - that ToE was essentially religious - would sound rather hypocritical and hollow, dontcha think...?
Cornelius, you weren't asked to include/exclude miracles. You were asked to provide "some method for including/excluding miracles in science". SOME METHOD.
ReplyDeleteRitchie said...
ReplyDelete“Secondly, science WORKS. The fact that science is so damned productive (we have cars, spacecrafts, the internet, heart bypasses, cloning, gene sequencing, the list goes on and on) is a reasonable indication that science has a reasonable grasp on how the world actually works. If it was so fundamentally flawed then it would be a very strange point that it was also so productive.”
Really what it works it is not science itself, but the application of science the technology. And technology works, no matter the scientific theories are true or not, because it uses the practical part of the science, the facts.
“Finally, how are we to determine between two miraculous explanations of observed data? If we see, for example, an apple fall from a tree, how are we to determine if invisible angels pushed it down, or if a fairy put a spell on it to make it fall, or if the apple suddenly spawned a consciousness and DECIDED to fall? How are we to test any of these? The scientific method is certainly insufficient for the job. It cannot test them. It cannot prove that they are wrong. It will simply assume they are wrong because they are not naturalistic explanations.”
Agree, but then science should keep his placed, science cannot say the gravity force is or is not the will of God, and the teory of garivity is an explanation valid until we observe a fact disprove it.
“"Evolutionists can modify their approach and join science..."
Yet again you insinuate ToE operates differently from the rest of science. It's enough to make a rational person weep. ToE does NOT behave differently. EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE ASSUMES NATURALISM!!! IT IS THIS ASSUMPTION OF NATURALISM WHICH MAKES ToE SCIENCE!!!!!”
May be the big problem is that ToE is not science. As it explains facts in the past is history, and you have to work with the history rules and inside the history limitations plus the assumption of the scientific method.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Really what it works it is not science itself, but the application of science the technology. And technology works, no matter the scientific theories are true or not, because it uses the practical part of the science, the facts."
Technology is just the practical application of science. Technology works because science works. Technology is not seperate from science.
"science cannot say the gravity force is or is not the will of God,"
True. Science cannot say evolution is not the will of God.
"May be the big problem is that ToE is not science."
Totally wrong. ToE IS science.
"As it explains facts in the past is history, and you have to work with the history rules and inside the history limitations plus the assumption of the scientific method."
Again there is not an easy disconect between science and history. It is science AND history. This does not undermine it as a scientific theory.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI understand that lots of technology is based upon science that isn't well understood. Radio is based on quantum physics, which is still pretty much a mystery. And, please correct me if I'm wrong, applications were being developed even before the modern understanding of physics was developed. Humans mastered the use of fire before they new anything about chemistry. People were practising medicine and even performing brain surgery in ancient times.
Cornelius Hunter: "Evolutionists say they cannot reckon with miracles. They don’t know how to determine if naturalistic explanations don’t work. Therefore science must be limited to naturalism and, indeed, anything else is a science stopper according to evolutionists."
ReplyDeletelet me fix this for you:
"Scientists say they cannot reckon with miracles. They don’t know how to determine if naturalistic explanations don’t work. Therefore science must be limited to naturalism and, indeed, anything else is a science stopper according to scientists."
When an error is pointed out to you so many times, it is getting increasingly hard to attribute it to anything other than an intentional attempt to mislead.
Nat -
ReplyDeleteI'm missing your point.
"I understand that lots of technology is based upon science that isn't well understood. Radio is based on quantum physics, which is still pretty much a mystery."
Okay. So?
"And, please correct me if I'm wrong, applications were being developed even before the modern understanding of physics was developed. Humans mastered the use of fire before they new anything about chemistry."
Again, yes. So?
"People were practising medicine and even performing brain surgery in ancient times."
Again...
DC -
ReplyDelete"When an error is pointed out to you so many times, it is getting increasingly hard to attribute it to anything other than an intentional attempt to mislead."
Amen. I've been trying to cling to the idea that Cornelius is genuinely mistaken rather than simply spouting what he knows to be lies, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.
Ritchie said...
ReplyDelete"Technology is just the practical application of science. Technology works because science works. Technology is not seperate from science."
Yes it is. Technology needs only the experimantal results, not the theory. Humans successfully used the fire also when the science teached the existance of flogisto and we send spacecraft thinking that exist dark matter and dark energy.
Totally wrong. ToE IS science.
No, the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method mimplies: 1) observaton, 2)hypotesis, 3)experiment that lead to disprove (falsifie) the hipotesis 4) Hypotesys disproved (back to 2) or hypotesys rejected back to 3.
For ToE 1 and 3 are impossible, it is not science, maybe history science related, or history based on science, but it is not science.
"Again there is not an easy disconect between science and history. It is science AND history. This does not undermine it as a scientific theory."
History and science are different things, sciences studies actual events, history past events.
History uses science, but with the history rules.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI undrstood you to be saying that the fact that technology works is proof that science works. But how can that be when the technology worked even when the science was way off? People used fire when they believed in fire demons, or phlogiston. People wer performing brain surgery to let the demons out of the patients cranium. Alchemists discovered lots of cehmistry while looking for the philosopher's stone. And astronomy was invented when people still believed in an Earth in the center of a hollow sphere. So it looks like the success of technology, if anything, is proof of science's failures.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Yes it is. Technology needs only the experimantal results, not the theory."
Alright, in principle perhaps that's true. But in this day and age where technology is generally quite expensive and you generally need to do quite a lot of work to get grants, technology is pretty damn interwoven with science.
"For ToE 1 and 3 are impossible"
No it isn't.
Some observations of evolution in action
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And ToE is highly falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified. There is a difference.
"History and science are different things, sciences studies actual events, history past events.
History uses science, but with the history rules."
You really need to stop slotting things into boxes like this. "X is technology, therefore it isn't science. Y is history, therefore it isn't science.' ToE is a scientific theory. Yes, it does deal with the history of life, but also with life here and now - genetics is an entire field grown up from the Theory of Evolution. If ToE is wrong, then we should completely scrap genetics right now. Yet it is a massively productive, applicable and important field for everything from paternity tests and pathology, to medicine and conservation.
nat -
ReplyDelete"I undrstood you to be saying that the fact that technology works is proof that science works. But how can that be when the technology worked even when the science was way off?"
Alright, I'll allow there is, in principle a distinction. But notice how far back you are going to pluck these examples. How far would we get putting together a piece of modern machinery without any understanding at all of scientific theory? How would we build a car, a spaceship, a computer?
Science and MODERN technology are pretty inseperable in this day and age. You cannot look at the achievements of the modern world - space flight, modern medicine, the internet - and conclude they have nothing to do with science?
Phlogiston theory was science. The question is, how often does science get it right?
ReplyDelete"Phlogiston theory was science. The question is, how often does science get it right?
ReplyDelete???
Do you have any idea how science works??
We draw up theories. We test them again and again. Sometimes theories are falsified and are disgarded. That's exactly how is works.
Criticising 'science' because not every theory is complete and absolutely accurate first time round is way beneath you, nat. You usually raise more intelligent questions than that.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The point is that technology doesn't seem to be a very good indicator about how well understood the science is, or how accurate the science is. I understand that microchips are based on quantum physics, which is still poorly understood.
ReplyDelete"The point is that technology doesn't seem to be a very good indicator about how well understood the science is, or how accurate the science is."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it? What technology works, yet was built using faulty science?
"I understand that microchips are based on quantum physics, which is still poorly understood."
Is it...? I find that hard to swallow.
Ritchie said...
ReplyDelete“Alright, in principle perhaps that's true. But in this day and age where technology is generally quite expensive and you generally need to do quite a lot of work to get grants, technology is pretty damn interwoven with science.”
Irrelevant, and the truth is you get big money when the research is not basic research, when the research has practical application at the end aomly scientist are interested in theories.
“ "For ToE 1 and 3 are impossible"
No it isn't.
Some observations of evolution in action
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And ToE is highly falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified. There is a difference.”
Let appart if what you are observing is evolution like ToE claims, ToE try to explain the origin of the actual species. So you are not observing it, you always have to make the assumption that things happened like it happened now.
“You really need to stop slotting things into boxes like this. "X is technology, therefore it isn't science. Y is history, therefore it isn't science.' ToE is a scientific theory”
Well, I try to apply the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method, and that requires to be specific in what you are saying.
“ genetics is an entire field grown up from the Theory of Evolution.”
Sorry Ritchie, born of genetics is not related to ToE, humans has knowledge of the genetics law since the prehistory, and they used for the improvement of animals and plants for food. The science of genetics born in a monastery at Brno where Mendel applying the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method demostrated the utility of his hypotesis.
“If ToE is wrong, then we should completely scrap genetics right now. Yet it is a massively productive, applicable and important field for everything from paternity tests and pathology, to medicine and conservation.”
All this technology is valid if ToE is right os if it is wrong, as I say before evolutionist claims to apply the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method, but then switch to metaphisics adding words to it.
Ritchie said:"Alright, I'll allow there is, in principle a distinction. But notice how far back you are going to pluck these examples. How far would we get putting together a piece of modern machinery without any understanding at all of scientific theory? How would we build a car, a spaceship, a computer?"
ReplyDeleteHumans do not need a right theory to use the technology derived form the experimental work done by the scientist. We could use atomic energy with a very primitive theory of the atomic structure.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Irrelevant, and the truth is you get big money when the research is not basic research, when the research has practical application at the end aomly scientist are interested in theories."
I'm sorry, you're saying that none of our greatest achievements of the modern age, cloning, heart transplants, walking on the moon, computers, planes, have anythnig to do with science...?
"ToE try to explain the origin of the actual species."
No. ToE does NOT try to explain the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis. A different, though related, theory. ToE concerns itself only with how life develops, not how it begins.
"Well, I try to apply the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method, and that requires to be specific in what you are saying."
If what you are saying is 'the theory of evolution is not science', then your problem is that you are simply wrong.
"Sorry Ritchie, born of genetics is not related to ToE"
WHAT? Genetics is not related to ToE? Fail. It absolutely is.
"The science of genetics born in a monastery at Brno where Mendel applying the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method demostrated the utility of his hypotesis."
Yes, Mendel vindicated one of the core principles of Darwin's theory. He discovered how traits were passed from parent to offspring ni exactly the way Darwin required.
"Humans do not need a right theory to use the technology derived form the experimental work done by the scientist."
That IS science then.
Do you see how futile it is to try to divide the two?
Again, I'd suggest that science is in the business of problem solving. That is, finding better explanations for phenomena.
ReplyDeleteWhile a strong definition for the supernatural appears to be elusive, what's clear is that a claim of supernatural causation is a implicit claim that of unexplainably. Specifically, it's not it's unexplainable in practice, but unexplainable in principle.
As such, any claim of supernatural of supernatural causation excludes itself by nature of this implication.
It's not that science cannot handle the the supernatural, it's that the supernatural cannot provide an explanation.
In other words, the current crop of ID doesn't actually explain the biological complexity we observe. It merely attempts to reassign causation to some unexplainable "designer" It's a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary synthesis.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteRichie: "Totally wrong. ToE IS science."
No, the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method mimplies: 1) observaton, 2)hypotesis, 3)experiment that lead to disprove (falsifie) the hipotesis 4) Hypotesys disproved (back to 2) or hypotesys rejected back to 3.
For ToE 1 and 3 are impossible, it is not science, maybe history science related, or history based on science, but it is not science.
This level of stupidity (or willful dishonesty) from Creationists always leaves me shaking my head.
For 1) we don't have to observe an event in real-time to be able to scientifically investigate it. All we have to observe and investigate is the evidence left by the event. ToE has done this in spades. Ken Ham started this nonsense with his "were you there??? Did you see it??" and it's amazing how many Creationists still push the crap.
For 3) is this nitwit really saying we can never disprove a hypothesis about the history of life on the planet? How about the hypothesis "all life on earth save 2 or 7 breeding pairs was wiped out by an Earth covering flood only 4500 years ago". That bit of foolishness has been disproven a thousand times over.
Creationist attempts to rhetorically argue away the solid sciences that support ToE make you want to both laugh and cry.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteHumans do not need a right theory to use the technology derived form the experimental work done by the scientist. We could use atomic energy with a very primitive theory of the atomic structure.
Not to use the technology, but you most definitely need a 'right' theoretical understanding of natural phenomena to develop the technology.
Technology and the theoretical understanding of the natural world co-evolve. I'd love to see an IDCer tell us how to develop a new technology, say hypersonic flight, by assuming supernatural entities can change the laws of physics on a whim.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI understand Darwin's idea of inheritance was based on what he called "gemules" which weer little blobby things that got into the germ cells and controlled what the offspring look like. Gemules were suppose to be malliable.
Mendel discovered that inheritance is controlled by discrete units called genes that are passed intact from parent to offspring. This created a problem for Darwinists because it meant that the variation that natural selection needed to work on wasn't there. It wasn't until the modern synthesis was invented that evolutionists could accept genetics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Wasn't the smallpox vaccine invented before much was known about infections or immunity. And wasn't penicillin discovered by accident? Same thing with insulin, and vulcanized rubber. Seems like some technology happened by accident. Not a lot of science involved.
ReplyDeleteRitchie said...
ReplyDelete"I'm sorry, you're saying that none of our greatest achievements of the modern age, cloning, heart transplants, walking on the moon, computers, planes, have anythnig to do with science...?"
No, I´m saying that all that achivements has nothing to do with scientific teories, maybe in the future we will faund all the teories related with that achievments are completle or partial wrong and the achievements still stands. That is the problem with the confusion when using the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method improperly.
"ToE try to explain the origin of the actual species."
No. ToE does NOT try to explain the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis. A different, though related, theory. ToE concerns itself only with how life develops, not how it begins.”
Sorry, I do not understand, origin of the actual species for you is abiogenesis?
"If what you are saying is 'the theory of evolution is not science', then your problem is that you are simply wrong."
Then describe an experiment that could falsify ToE.
"WHAT? Genetics is not related to ToE? Fail. It absolutely is.
Yes, Mendel vindicated one of the core principles of Darwin's theory. He discovered how traits were passed from parent to offspring ni exactly the way Darwin required.
"Mendel do not even know the ToE when perform his experiments, and the idea of heritence of Darwin was complete different of what Mendel found. How can genetic science born without knowing the ToE and be dependant of ToE?"
"Humans do not need a right theory to use the technology derived form the experimental work done by the scientist."
"That IS science then."
Yes, not scientific theories.
Thorton said:" How about the hypothesis "all life on earth save 2 or 7 breeding pairs was wiped out by an Earth covering flood only 4500 years ago". That bit of foolishness has been disproven a thousand times over. "
ReplyDeletePlease, with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method disprove that hypotesis.
" by assuming supernatural entities can change the laws of physics on a whim."
With the with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method prove that the laws of physics will stand tomorrow.
squid ink schuster said...
ReplyDeleteWasn't the smallpox vaccine invented before much was known about infections or immunity. And wasn't penicillin discovered by accident? Same thing with insulin, and vulcanized rubber. Seems like some technology happened by accident. Not a lot of science involved
No squiddy - all of those things were discovered in the course of scientific investigations. Some of the results were serendipitous and unexpected, but it was scientific investigations that led to the discovery every time.
Maybe you can tell us how Creationism is better than science when it comes to making these sorts of discoveries and further developing the results.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said:" How about the hypothesis "all life on earth save 2 or 7 breeding pairs was wiped out by an Earth covering flood only 4500 years ago". That bit of foolishness has been disproven a thousand times over. "
Please, with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method disprove that hypotesis.
Observation: there are millions of different species presently on the Earth
Hypothesis: all creatures on Earth came from 2 or 7 breeding pairs only 4500 years ago
Test: Measure the genetic diversity in populations of thousands of different species. Discover no evidence of severe genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago in any of the tested species.
Result: Hypothesis disproved.
" by assuming supernatural entities can change the laws of physics on a whim."
With the with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method prove that the laws of physics will stand tomorrow
I'm listening - Tell us how you would design an airplane when you have a Loki God randomly changing Bernoulli's principle and/or the force of gravity.
Thorton:"Test: Measure the genetic diversity in populations of thousands of different species. Discover no evidence of severe genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago in any of the tested species."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a test, this are a theory based on a lot of assumptions, starting with you can measure the time of the events based on actual observation.
"I'm listening - Tell us how you would design an airplane when you have a Loki God randomly changing Bernoulli's principle and/or the force of gravity."
It is impossible, and I´m going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science? Will Bernoulli´s principle stands tomorrow when I´ll take the plane?
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:"Test: Measure the genetic diversity in populations of thousands of different species. Discover no evidence of severe genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago in any of the tested species."
This is not a test, this are a theory based on a lot of assumptions, starting with you can measure the time of the events based on actual observation.
No, it's an empirical test. Genetic diversity in populations is measured all the time. The results are there for anyone to see. The data indicate no recent severe population bottlenecks.
Sorry, but the Noah's fantasy has indeed been falsified.
Maybe you should lie again and say your university taught you that genetic diversity can't be measured. Isn't that you usual style?
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "I'm listening - Tell us how you would design an airplane when you have a Loki God randomly changing Bernoulli's principle and/or the force of gravity."
It is impossible, and I´m going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science? Will Bernoulli´s principle stands tomorrow when I´ll take the plane?
Aah, so when your personal safety depends on it then you're more than happy to stipulate science assume only naturalism. Makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, but that's not surprising.
Thorton:"No, it's an empirical test. Genetic diversity in populations is measured all the time. The results are there for anyone to see. The data indicate no recent severe population bottlenecks."
ReplyDeleteSeems that "empirical" is a toguht concept for darwinists.
Thorton:"Aah, so when your personal safety depends on it then you're more than happy to stipulate science assume only naturalism. Makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, but that's not surprising."
You always understand backwards, I´m not going to take the plane assuming of naturalism, because they do not have a way to demostrate that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow. I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:"No, it's an empirical test. Genetic diversity in populations is measured all the time. The results are there for anyone to see. The data indicate no recent severe population bottlenecks."
Seems that "empirical" is a toguht concept for darwinists.
Honesty is a tough concept for Creationists.
Noah's fantasy has been falsified.
Thorton:"Aah, so when your personal safety depends on it then you're more than happy to stipulate science assume only naturalism. Makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, but that's not surprising."
You always understand backwards, I´m not going to take the plane assuming of naturalism, because they do not have a way to demostrate that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow. I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow.
But the net result is the same. You want only naturalism when it suits you, demand science accept the supernatural when it doesn't. Hypocrite.
Blas:
ReplyDeleteI will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow.
The Logos? What's that then? I wonder how many of the children that drowned on that cruise ship on the Wolga took comfort in The Logos.
What is it about The Logos that makes you so sure that Bernoulli's principle will stand tomorrow? I'm pretty sure myself simply because we haven't seen any deviations from one day to the next so far, for a long time. By Bayesian logic, that gives me plenty of comfort.
troy said...
ReplyDeleteBlas: "I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow."
The Logos? What's that then? I wonder how many of the children that drowned on that cruise ship on the Wolga took comfort in The Logos.
The sinking of the Wolga was nothing compared to the millions who were supposedly drowned in Noah's Flood by The Logos.
How do you suppose those folks felt Blas? They trusted in The Logos too to 'not play dices', only to see the sadistic bastard a create supernatural miracle to give them all a slow agonizing death.
If The Logos can use a miracle to commit genocide on the whole planet, what's to stop It from making the wings of your plane lose all lift?
Thorton:"But the net result is the same. You want only naturalism when it suits you, demand science accept the supernatural when it doesn't. Hypocrite."
ReplyDeleteI´ll try to understand you. You mean that I accept naturalism because I use the Bernoulli´s principle and then discard naturalism?
If that is what you understand, as Ritchie, or you in the falsification of the Noa´s ark history you are confusing the empirical data with the explanation or the theory behind the empirical data. Bernoulli´s principle is an empirical observation and fits a lot of theories behind. I can beleive it is due the hairs of God and still build safety airplanes.
Troy said:" By Bayesian logic, that gives me plenty of comfort."
ReplyDeleteThat is not science, if you want discuss that we can move to a blog about metaphisics.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:"But the net result is the same. You want only naturalism when it suits you, demand science accept the supernatural when it doesn't. Hypocrite."
I´ll try to understand you. You mean that I accept naturalism because I use the Bernoulli´s principle and then discard naturalism?
If that is what you understand, as Ritchie, or you in the falsification of the Noa´s ark history you are confusing the empirical data with the explanation or the theory behind the empirical data. Bernoulli´s principle is an empirical observation and fits a lot of theories behind. I can beleive it is due the hairs of God and still build safety airplanes.
If that's the case then by the same standard the evidence for evolution (common descent over deep time) is an empirical observation and fits the naturalistic theory behind it extremely well. Genetic diversity and no evidence of any severe population bottlenecks 4500 years ago is an empirical observation and fits the naturalistic theory behind it extremely well.
I can believe that the Omnipotent Deity Of My Choice used naturalistic evolutionary processes and common descent over billions of years to produce the biologic diversity we see today and still get scientific results. So there is no reason to demand science include supernatural miracles in life's history. Yet that is exactly what you and the other Creationist are doing.
Claiming GAWD allows naturalism to happen in one case and demanding supernatural intervention in another is the act of a hypocrite.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteTroy said:" By Bayesian logic, that gives me plenty of comfort."
That is not science, if you want discuss that we can move to a blog about metaphisics
Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion.
Blas, you brought up The Logos. When I bring up Bayesian logic, you blame me for bringing up metaphysics? See the problem?
ReplyDeleteNat -
ReplyDelete"I understand Darwin's idea of inheritance was based on what he called "gemules" which weer little blobby things that got into the germ cells and controlled what the offspring look like. Gemules were suppose to be malliable.
Mendel discovered that inheritance is controlled by discrete units called genes that are passed intact from parent to offspring. This created a problem for Darwinists because it meant that the variation that natural selection needed to work on wasn't there. It wasn't until the modern synthesis was invented that evolutionists could accept genetics. Please correct me if I'm wrong."
I'm afraid you are wrong. Mendel did not pose problems for Darwinisn - his discoveries absolutely vindicated Darwin.
I wrote out a long post about how Darwin left a lot of his theory to be fleshed out by scientists after him, but I'm having technical issues and my cmoputer is cutting out whenever it feels like it. But please put aside an hour to watch the following programme. I think you'll find it very instructive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJIHOzmZLs
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the success of technology doesn't seem to correlate very well with the success of any scientific theory, or the scientific method. Y'know, hypothesis testing, etc.
And lots of the people who actually invented modern science were religious. They were doing science to understand the mind of God.
Thorton:"Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."
ReplyDeleteI´m not making that claim, I´ll try to keep all metaphisic out of science but seems darwinist always bring in metaphisic i the discussion I wonder why.
Follow the discussion I had with Ritchie.
According to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmules
Gemmules are very different than genes.
And according to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
Mendelism was a problem for Darwinism until the development of the modern synthesis.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteThis created a problem for Darwinists because it meant that the variation that natural selection needed to work on wasn't there
From the wiki,the tension was
" debate over saltationism versus gradualism (Darwin had been a gradualist, but Bateson was a saltationist). Later, Ronald Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane showed that discrete mutations were compatible with gradual evolution:"
It wasn't if it occurred ,just what was the manner. I guess you missed that part
troy said...
ReplyDelete"Blas, you brought up The Logos. When I bring up Bayesian logic, you blame me for bringing up metaphysics? See the problem?"
My discussion with Thorton developed in this way:
Thorton:" How about the hypothesis "all life on earth save 2 or 7 breeding pairs was wiped out by an Earth covering flood only 4500 years ago". That bit of foolishness has been disproven a thousand times over. "
Please, with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method disprove that hypotesis.
With [the with] the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method prove that the laws of physics will stand tomorrow.
Thorton:"I'm listening - Tell us how you would design an airplane when you have a Loki God randomly changing Bernoulli's principle and/or the force of gravity."
Blas:It is impossible, and I´m going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science? Will Bernoulli´s principle stands tomorrow when I´ll take the plane?
Thorton:"Aah, so when your personal safety depends on it then you're more than happy to stipulate science assume only naturalism. Makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, but that's not surprising."
Blas:You always understand backwards, I´m not going to take the plane assuming of naturalism, because they do not have a way to demostrate that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow. I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow.
As you can see, I brought the Logos only to explain how also non naturalists can do science.
And naturalist in the same way have to use reason or hope that the "scientifics laws" are constants.
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete"Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."
I never claimed that, I´m only said, that Noa´s hypotesis is not falsifiable, like ToE, because are histories not science.
"As for magic and miracles, St. Augusting put it nicely when he said (paraphrasing) "Miracles are only miracles because we don't yet understand the science behind them". If we keep digging and we will eventually know how spirits operate in the material dimension- / "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."
ReplyDeleteSounds like Augustine was a methodological naturalist...
Why would you say that Nick? Augustine made the simple observation that 'out of sight is not out of mind'.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of natural that you (pl)seem to adhere to is where natural means what can be observed with the eye, that which can be detected with mechanical sensors, that which can be isolated.
Unfortunately for science practitioners today, we are arriving at the edge of the ability for that narrow definition of nature to yield more in depth understanding of the physical world. We've paid a 1B ticket to see the Higgs Boson show. Where are you, boson baby?
To be sure, it is that which can be perceived and comprehended by Mind, regardless of its state of existence that matters (pardon the pun), not what is seen through a 1B dollar race track.
How much more do we have to pay before we accept the idea that we and the universe are more than meets the eye?
squid ink schuster said...
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the success of technology doesn't seem to correlate very well with the success of any scientific theory, or the scientific method. Y'know, hypothesis testing, etc.
LOL! Sure thing squiddy. In Schusterville engineers and designers never bother to rigorously test their new designs, They jump right from conception into the production stage.
And lots of the people who actually invented modern science were religious. They were doing science to understand the mind of God.
The ones who succeeded were the ones who knew to keep their religious biases and preconceptions out of their scientific work. That is just as true for today's very devout scientists as it was 400 years ago. Pity today's Creationists and IDiots aren't honest enough or smart enough to follow their example.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said...
"Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."
I never claimed that, I´m only said, that Noa´s hypotesis is not falsifiable, like ToE, because are histories not science.
Noah's Ark hypothesis is falsifiable and has been falsified. I already showed you the evidence. ToE is falsifiable but hasn't been falsified. That's the big difference.
Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you thing police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?
Thorton:" rigorously test their new designs, "
ReplyDeleteThe key word is test, their don´t care about theories, they tests.
The ones who succeeded were the ones who knew to keep their religious biases and preconceptions out of their scientific work. That is just as true for today's very devout scientists as it was 400 years ago. Pity today's darwinists aren't honest enough or smart enough to follow their example
Thorton"Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you thing police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?"
ReplyDeleteThorton when scientific police investigates crimes, they perform actual test over actual evidence, they try to understand what happened yesterday, not millions of years ago. Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove if Napoleon was poisoned figure the ToE.
Bias: […] I'm going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science?
ReplyDeleteThat you're God is directly involved in some aspects of phenomena, but a secondary cause of others is a theological assumption.
Just as we no longer have Muslim algebra or Christian physics, evolution doesn't hinge on the properties you happen to personally attribute to your God.
Without theory, you're left with induction. However, as Hume showed us, the future doesn't necessary resemble the past, or vice versa.
For example, It could be that an army of slide rule toting demons intervene to pul on objects according to their mass.
But this leaves the question: why would an army of demons just so happen to agree to do such a thing consistently and at the rate we currently observe? In the absence of such an explanation, it stands that they could also just so happen to decide pull on objects differently five million years from now, five months from now or five seconds from now.
From the perspective of science, your "God" is no different than this army of demons, in that we lack explanations for why he would act the way you expect him to act. The difference is that it's a commonly accepted religious view that God is consistent.
One could just as well posit that God has an equally powerful evil twin and each of them want different gravitational constants. As such, the constant we observe is one that neither wanted, but a average between the two. Should one give up, the constant could change.
Finally, Einstein's wasn't referring to a personal God, he was referring to Spinoza's God.
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Scott I agree with everything you said, but it is irrelevant to discussion about science.
ReplyDeleteBlas said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you think police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?"
Thorton when scientific police investigates crimes, they perform actual test over actual evidence, they try to understand what happened yesterday, not millions of years ago.
If the evidence from the event still exists and is still testable, why would the age of the evidence matter? Does a footprint stop being a footprint when it hits a certain age? Evidence of evolution from hundreds of millions of years ago is still available and testable.
Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove if Napoleon was poisoned figure the ToE.
Science doesn't prove or disprove anything. Science offers the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence available. And science can certainly tell what killed someone, even if that event happened thousands of years ago. Go read about what science knows about Otzi the Iceman, a 5300 year old corpse found frozen in the Alps.
Bias: Scott I agree with everything you said, but it is irrelevant to discussion about science.
ReplyDelete.... because?
Apparently, you're definition of science is woefully of date or you're appealing to some hidden assumption which somehow insulates it from these issues.
- Is there a solution to the problem of induction? If so, what is it?
- Where do you put divine revelation in the traditional justificationalist hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?
I'm guessing the answers to these questions would shed some much needed light on this issue.
Looks like life might not have had a "creator" but may be "imported" from Mars or such. It might have travelled over a long time, and proteins might have evolved like that.
ReplyDeleteWhat is possibly wrong with this point of view, please educate me.