Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

[Shubee]

Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

 

It seems like the biggest problem with Christian creationism is the insistence by most Christians that the Christian God is the agent in the creation process. That's automatically against the rulebook in the game called science. I therefore propose replacing Christian creationism with quantum creationism, which I believe embodies the fundamentals of Christian creationism, yet can be defended as science.

 

Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

 

Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

 

Exodus 14:21

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided."

The answer to this question is yes. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

 

The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe.

 

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.

 

Indicators for human extinction

 

Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?

 

1: Cancer

Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.

 

2: Immunodeficiency

Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.

 

3: Heart attacks and strokes

Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.

 

4: Sperm counts

Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.

Shubee

[Tormod]

This is still Creationism, regardless of what coat rack you hang it on.

 

The Red Sea division is a myth with no bearing on the existence of the universe. Quantum theory does not really apply to things like myths.

 

Moving this to Theology, although it really belongs in Strange Claims.

[CraigD]

Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory.

The problem with this, as a formal definition, is that “improbability” isn’t a formal mathematical term. Rather, “improbable” is a context-specific or informal synonym of “having a low probability”. It’s odd and not useful to describe the “improbability” of an event, because it’s at best the same as describing the probability [math]p[/math] of an event, or [math]1-p[/math].

 

The bigger question of this thread, however is

Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

Details aside, anything can be made into a scientific theory by expressing it as an understandable (to a given target audience, who may have very specialized language and skills) collection of techniques for generating predictions of experimentally verifiable outcomes. To be a correct theory, predictions must be made, experimentally tested, and found to be correct.

 

So to make a specific form of creationism (the term has many meanings, so requires more specific definition) into a scientific theory, one need only use it to make predictions. For the theory to be correct, experimental test of these predictions must find them correct.

 

This has been done many times for various forms of creationism. Young Earth creationism, for example, predicts that measurements of the age of animal and human remains should find no animal remains more than two days older than the oldest human remains, and that nothing whatever should be measured to be older than about 10,000 years. When tested with techniques such as examining fossil and radiometric dating, however, these predictions fail, so, as a scientific theory, young Earth creationism is not correct.

 

For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

It is correct that the formalism of quantum mechanics describes the position and other attributes of particles of matter as a range of values related to probabilities. So, for any given particle, the probability [math]p_1[/math] that if will be detected within a volume arbitrarily distant from its most probable location, while very small, is non-zero. The probability that many particles would be detected in low-probability locations preserving their relative positions – ie: that the water of the Red Sea would be detected not in a parted path across it, yet still be water, not steam, or plasma, or a storm of rapidly decaying exotic particles – is many time less probable than for a single particle – a reasonable if simplistic estimate is [math]p_1^n[/math], where [math]n[/math] is the number of particles. Because [math]n[/math] is very large, [math]p_1^n[/math] is very, very small.

 

I’ve not attempted to estimate these miniscule probabilities. As the idea’s champion, however, this sounds like a task for Shubee. ;) Shubee, explicitly making whatever assumptions and guesses you need, linking to any reference material you use, and showing your calculations, what do you calculate for the probability of the spontaneous parting of the Red Sea (or an easier-to-describe body of water)? :QuestionM

[questor]

The main impediment to discussing this problem is the inability of most people

to eliminate the man-made concept of God from their minds when arguing points. Example here is the parting of the Red Sea myth which of course is immediately refuted by those of scientific bent , or that man was created 10,000 years ago, a story which is always used to point out how ridiculous creationists claims are. This is a ridiculous claim, but suppose the dates were off and man's ancestors appeared after the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, or even much later.

My own argument is to imagine the earth does not exist, but the rest of the universe does. There is no one to confuse the issue by concocting the myth of an elderly man with a staff and long beard surrounded by angels. What then? 3 choices:

1. the universe was always here

2. the universe spontaneously appeared

3. the universe was created by some force that was/is not God

My point, do not argue the Bible, do not argue the existence of God, do not argue man-made myths--argue how the universe came to be. If it was created, creationism would be science.

[freeztar]

If it was created, creationism would be science.

 

Only so far as Craig has pointed out above. It's still a bad theory though. How do you test for creation? Without a way to do this, the theory falls apart at the predictive hypothesis stage.

 

One of the beauties of modern cosmology is that it doesn't care if the universe was created or not. :)

[HydrogenBond]

The way you resolve humans being created 10,000 years ago is to define what they, the ancients, meant by human. We or science assumes they meant the superficial looking humanoid based on modern definitions of anatomy that were not around at the time the bible claim was made. We are comparing apples to oranges.

 

The ancient thought in terms of soul and spirit and not anatomy, which can be translated to mean heart and mind of a human. The formation of civilization is about the time of the bible claim, when there was a major change in humanity into diverse cultural activities, such as math, science, religion, commerce, architecture, art, etc. This actually corresponds fairly well with the bible date. This required a boost to the human mind away from the pre-humans who only looked human. The latter were called beasts of the field and not considered fully human. There were anatomically correct but their minds or spirits were pre-human.

 

Here is how off base science is in terms of normalized definitions. The "Gay Nineties" of 1890's was not the time time homosexuals came out of the closet in large numbers. I am using the modern definition of gay and working under the assumption people of 1890's knew this modern definition. Based on the erroneous claim of 1890's the people of that time knew nothing about sex orientations. That is the debate in a nutshell. The problem is no normalized definition and no attempt by science to take the date and see is humans under went a major behavioral change.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me give a more controversial example of this that is closer to modern times. I mean not insult by this but it helps make the point. Slavery in America was originally justified because the blacks were not considered fully human and therefore could be treated like animals. They were not thinking in terms of anatomy but were comparing ancient tribal behavior and superstitions to the propensities to western civilizations. Even the native americans were treated like savages who were not considered fully human or had a human soul. They were not basing their definition on anatomy but on mind and behavior (soul and spirit).

 

We need to figure out what the ancients defined as human to see if the 10K ago claim is valid. There are hints in the bible as to what they meant. Humans were made in the image of God according to the tradition. God was defined as spirit and not body. The ancients were not concerned with anatomy or body. If anything there was a push to punish the body since it was considered tainted. It is what was inside which was important. For example, according to judeo-christian tradition when you die sexuality is not retained in heaven since the essence of the human spirit was not connected to the physical body. I am not challenging the modern definition of humans. I am only trying to piece together what the ancients meant so we have a normalized definition. Once we have that, then we look to see if 10K years coordinates their definition.

[freeztar]

I don't think anyone can pin down when the idea of "soul" came about. I would imagine that the idea developed over many generations. It did not spontaneuously appear at an arbitrary point in time.

 

Anyhow, the ages given in the bible (which is used to calculate the "birth of man") are ridiculous with everything we know about biology. A human that lives 900+ years? I think not. :)

[Shubee]

Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

It is correct that the formalism of quantum mechanics describes the position and other attributes of particles of matter as a range of values related to probabilities. So, for any given particle, the probability [math]p_1[/math] that if will be detected within a volume arbitrarily distant from its most probable location, while very small, is non-zero. The probability that many particles would be detected in low-probability locations preserving their relative positions – ie: that the water of the Red Sea would be detected not in a parted path across it, yet still be water, not steam, or plasma, or a storm of rapidly decaying exotic particles – is many time less probable than for a single particle – a reasonable if simplistic estimate is [math]p_1^n[/math], where [math]n[/math] is the number of particles. Because [math]n[/math] is very large, [math]p_1^n[/math] is very, very small.

 

I’ve not attempted to estimate these miniscule probabilities. As the idea’s champion, however, this sounds like a task for Shubee. ;) Shubee, explicitly making whatever assumptions and guesses you need, linking to any reference material you use, and showing your calculations, what do you calculate for the probability of the spontaneous parting of the Red Sea (or an easier-to-describe body of water)? :QuestionM

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

 

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

 

Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?

[HydrogenBond]

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct. Where I was going with this is to question the basic premise of science and religion that the bible claim somehow defied space and time and used modern definitions. The religious assume this and science tries to refute it, with neither side seeing the flaw in terms of what was possible for humans 7000 years ago.

 

I would assume the ancients had something else in mind, when they defined human, that was more connected to behavior. In other words, their definition only had use of the eyes and no technology. So they could see animals had hearts, brains, lungs and blood just like humans. The difference would have to be something else. It would be connected to temperament. A humanoid acting like an animal would be called a beast. If they showed more civilized behavior they had something more and were called human. This temperament coordinates with the formation of civilization and the bible time table.

 

The next point is explaining what appear to be creationists claims in Genesis that the universe formed so quickly. The way this can be understood is the new human mind was more self aware and therefore aware of the world around them in a different way. This new awareness created the illusion these things appeared. In other words, nature was evolving but at a certain point, perception changed due to a new level of human awareness. They did not have modern understanding and assumed it just materialized.

 

Let me give an example. Before the former planet Pluto was discovered it did not exist in terms of human perception. One day it appeared. Modern people understand that it was always there, but the ancients did not have the benefit of collected knowledge. If they had discovered Pluto, they would say a god just put it there or it appeared out of the darkness that day. What they are documenting in genesis are dates of discovery when human awareness began to notice these things. Before that, the beasts of the field had little interest beyond eating and copulating and were not self aware enough to contemplate these things.

 

Seeing all the plants and animal form in one day can be explained logically.

This affect still occurs in modern times. Say there is a new discovery that is provocative. The day before nobody was thinking along certain lines. But the following day, after the discovery is revealed, people are brain storming and extrapolating in new directions they never thought possible, made possible by the discovery. All these new extrapolations appear suddenly, released by a trigger. The extrapolation into the perception of all the plants and animals only took a conceptual trigger. This does not mean they had cataloged all the species, just they became aware of how far detail extended in nature. If you existed at a time where there is zero information, with no conceptual means to organize this awareness, one simple explanation is it just suddenly appeared. This was correct in the sense that it did suddenly appear in the archives of human history.

 

Look at the news programs, today. Say a presidential candidate is discovered to cross dress. Once that is revealed, all the experts line up to analyze this. The amount of data and opinion generated by this trigger is enough to fill a truck. But it won't happen until the trigger induce the reaction. In genesis all that was needed was sort of a news trigger and a mind capable of extrapolation. In this case, thy used the eyes as a sensory tool to scan, see and become aware. It must have been quite a rush and overload that humbled them to higher powers that made all this just appear with blazing speed.

[questor]

We have no way of knowing what the original Bible really said. It was written over 2000 years ago by superstitious, ignorant people and has been translated several times, words redefined ,and explained out of context. I see no way to make scientific sense of its stories. On the other hand, all religions seem to have overlapping themes attempting to explain how we came to be.

However, evolution doesn't seem to answer many questions such as ; when man evolved into the Neanderthal, suddenly appeared modern man around

40,000 years ago. Where had he been hiding until that time? The Neanderthal

has a difference in genetic code from the Cro Magnon.

[Buffy]

I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

For those of you who want to know, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics basically boils down to the proposition that Physics should be dealt with entirely with abstract Mathematics, which is somewhat parallel to the division that has grown within the Physics community between Theoretical and Applied/Experimental Physicists.

 

As a result, Hydro's statement that:

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct.

is certainly relevant, but unfortunately does not at all make the problem with Shubee's first postulate go away.

 

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

 

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

 

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

 

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

 

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

 

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

 

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" because the decrease in frequency with different layers must have an explanation), uplifting of mountains that maintain the layers (in spite of the fact that the Bible claims no earthquakes or other major deformations of land at the same time as the great flood), and morphological progression evidenced in the layers (which are not explained by various "density of bones" theories common among Creationists), as well as many others.

 

In order to resolve these issues, a simple incredible stroke of luck that makes the great-flood a *possible* explanation is not enough, it requires the violation of known physical laws. These are not issues of improbability, but rather mathematical models providing clear contradictions that even Hilbert would agree with!

 

To put it more clearly, we're not even talking about a tornado in a junkyard, we're talking about say, gravity disappearing instantaneously, and then reappearing.

 

This would require a call to divine intervention, and thus make it by definition outside the realm of science.

 

Until you guys address this, I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere here.

 

Just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass, :)

Buffy

[Shubee]

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

 

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

 

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

 

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

 

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

 

For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article: Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.

 

Note that the article states: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

 

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.

 

As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.

 

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

 

Quantum indeterminancy is only a related concept. And quantum theory does make creationism possible. Physicists already admit that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence.

 

YouTube - Roger Penrose - Cyclic Universe Model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

 

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

 

It's not astoundingly improbable. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. I think it's highly likely that there is no clear and indisputable fact that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.

 

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

 

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" ...),

 

I learned the answer to that in a college intro course covering earth science and astronomy. The teacher was an avowed atheist. He explained that carbon-14 age has to be calibrated because the difference between carbon-14 age and tree-ring age increases as you go back in time. The comparison was shown graphically to the class in a slide presentation. Interestingly enough, there was less and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere as you go back in time. I understood the implications mathematically. Projecting carbon-14 availability from the known rapidly descending curve against tree-ring age implies that a carbon-14 test for anything beyond 20,000 years ago would appear virtually infinitely old. Accurate carbon-14 age determination is only as good as the oldest trees on earth if you make the usual adjustments. Anything beyond that limit is a guess.

[Shubee]

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

 

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

 

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

 

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

 

Shubee

[freeztar]

Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

 

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

 

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

 

Shubee

 

Look at it this way:

Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/100,000 for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^1 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

 

;)

[Galapagos]

To anyone who hasn't seen this yet, here is a list of specific creationist claims, and refutations of them:

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

Some of the refuted claims have been made/mentioned in this thread. It might save everyone time to read and review before getting into any crazy arguments.

 

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

 

To be clear, you're saying you believe that some religious MD who runs his own website has therein provided sufficient refutation of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed, published evidence spanning the fields of geology, paleontology, and genetics(to name a few).

You have to understand that this is an incredibly extraordinary claim to make. Especially given that the author of the website supports many fringe theories such as the religious pseudoscience of Michael Behe, which has been (almost unanimously) rejected by the science community and legal system as such.

 

Also of interest, 29+ evidences for macroevolution(heavy citation here):

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

[Moontanman]

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

 

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

 

Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?

 

My problem with the "scientific creationism" idea less to do with the probabilities of the Red Sea parting as it does with the Red Sea parting on command. It's bad enough that the universe will not exist long enough for this to have happened at random but for it to have happened at the precise moment the Israelites needed it to is many order of magnitude less probable. Then of course there are many other problems with the veracity of the Bible. One real biggie is the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. the middle east is not that big, in 40 years they could have wondered to South America, given the means they could have wondered to Mars in 40 years (exaggeration guys) ;) I remember being around twelve years old and wondering just how stupid someone would have to be to wander for 40 years in such a small place. The bible is full of this stuff so why should we even try to "prove" one small part of what is obviously a work of literature meant to be a moral guide line and not a true history of Life on Earth much less the universe.