Creationism--Proof ?

[questor]

Daytonturner, you continue to bang the nail on the head. the scientifically inclined here cannot seem to free their thoughts from resisting the idea of a creator because of myths such as the parting of the Red Sea and other stories which strain credulity and indeed may just be folk legend or parables to illustrate larger points.

in my own case i'm not sure how the universe was created, but i do know it occurred, either by intelligent design or by random accident.

i take no dogmatic view of how it happened, and can happily live with the truth. it could

certainly happen that as man's investigative armamentarium continues to become more sophisticated and penetrating, we may find the answers to all questions.

as a youth i attended church regularly, as a teenager i became atheistic, in my golden years i recognize the plethora of unanswered questions that exist and now i rely upon the evidence which abounds pointing to ID. my earthbound mind may have led me in the wrong direction, but at this time, with current information, i have to think there must have been ID. i notice that those that oppose ID give no reason except their disbelief in the man made folk legends, and their antipathy to unprovable theories. by this line of logic, they must also disagree with GR, dark energy, bosons, and all other theoretical particles and events mathmatically predicted but as yet unproved.

[C1ay]

in my own case i'm not sure how the universe was created, but i do know it occurred, either by intelligent design or by random accident.

I notice that you didn't say you think it happened this way or that, you said you know it happened one way or the other. Please provide proof. It is against the site rules to say something happened that way just because you know it is. This is a science site, get comfortable with providing proof other than faith.

 

The field of science is not just avoiding the possibility of a creator. At this time there is no evidence based on our observations to proffer a testable, falsifiable hypothesis of a creator from which we can draw testable predictions. If you know of the contrary then please enlighten us.

[HydrogenBond]

The bible was written at a time when people had limited understanding of science. Therefore it needed to stay simple to create some basic understanding within the minds of people. One may teach a child that electrons orbit a nucleus like the earth orbits the sun. This is partially true, but not scientifically rigorous. On the other hand, string theory is considered valid science even without proof of the strings. The strings are based on scientific faith which will close in the future. The irony is that the many dimensions of string theory give some scientific credibility to the religious dogma of others planes or dimensions of reality. How did simple folk know this so long ago, or why did science unconsciously borrow from this idea religion?

[daytonturner]

C1ay:

 

The statement “We don’t know, but we will figure it out,” has two parts. You addressed the first part while completely ignoring the second part. You apparently think that I fault science for “not knowing” which is about as far from the point as you could get.

 

If science would just say, “We dunno,” that would be sufficient. But to add to that an unqualified claim that science will definitely find an answer has a somewhat pretentious implication hidden within. The implication is that science will necessarily prove that which it predicts.

 

Science has a tendency to want to deal with everything from a total and absolute objective viewpoint and likes to believe (there’s that word again) everything has an objective explanation. But that is just not true in the real world.

 

If I tell you Hagen-Das French Vanilla ice cream is the best tasting ice cream ever made, you can disagree but there is no objective test to prove me wrong. And even if you could show that no one else in the world shared that opinion, it would not make it any less real to me. Can you conclude that I am wrong?

 

On the other hand, if I told you Hagen-Das French Vanilla ice cream will cure lung cancer, you can likely devise an objective proof to show me wrong.

 

The question I might pose here is whether scientific prediction is objective or subjective. Or must one look back and conclude that if testing was successful, it was objective while if a different than expected result was obtained, it was subjective?

 

Aristotle determined that the basic elements of the world were air, water, fire and earth. Was this an objective or subjective finding? We can kind of chuckle at his total misinterpretation of his observations but, again, were they objective or subjective? Or can we determine that only in hindsight?

 

In the years when the first law of thermodynamics wrongly claimed “Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed,” was that objective science or a subjective conclusion?

 

The line which separates objectivity from subjectivity can sometimes be elusive.

 

That which is determined subjectively is not necessarily wrong only because it is subjective and that which is determined objectively is not necessarily accurate only because it is objective.

 

Even if a belief in creationism is a completely subjective belief, it is not necessarily inaccurate solely because it is a subjective determination. Science which has not one shred of objective evidence to controvert this subjective belief, however, insists that it’s own subjective determination is the only one worthy of being presented in a scientific environment.

 

How can that even be honest?

[C1ay]

If science would just say, “We dunno,” that would be sufficient. But to add to that an unqualified claim that science will definitely find an answer has a somewhat pretentious implication hidden within. The implication is that science will necessarily prove that which it predicts.

Please provide some examples of these alleged claims that science will definitely find answers to the questions we don't have answers for.

[questor]

C1ay, i have made no claims that i have the answer in this debate. i have stated that the universe was either created or it was not. is there another possibility that i have overlooked?

[C1ay]

C1ay, i have made no claims that i have the answer in this debate. i have stated that the universe was either created or it was not. is there another possibility that i have overlooked?

and yet you stated earlier...

but i do know it occurred, either by intelligent design or by random accident.

Now, how do you know it was only one of these two and nothing else? How do you even know that the universe was created at all as opposed to existing for eternity? There are numerous possibilities and yet you claim to know that it was one of the two you say it is. How?

[questor]

if the universe has existed for all eternity, all the models showing an age of 8-14 billion

years are wrong. also the universe would have to be infinite or the expanding galaxies would have reached the outer border. also i question if a circular universe (as some have proposed) would not have borders. if the universe is expanding, does that not mean it was once smaller? i do not know these answers, but i would like to hear more possibilities. as i said, my mind is open and i welcome learned discourse.

[damocles]

Well, I see the science faction continues to retreat to its ultimate safe harbor, “We can’t explain it now, but we will someday.” Trust me, that carries even less weight with me than if I told you, “God did it.”

 

I found damocles' first post (No. 38) interesting from the aspect that he aligns himself with what I consider the school of science book on arrogance which suggests that science cannot be scrutinized by a reasoning process such as legal reasoning. (Not sure if this is because science is above reproach or if it is because science is incapable of being scrutinized by reasoning.)^1

 

In the case of hard science, such as two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make one molecule of water, I could agree there is no need to go through some reasoning process to weigh the truth of that scientific fact. No one with a rational mind questions those kinds of things.^2

 

However, when it comes to matters for which there is disagreement and where information is skimpy and testing is either impossible or incomplete, then some process of weighing the known data should be employed.^3

 

When we discuss the idea of proof of creationism (and that would include disproof also), we face the unenviable task of discussing a topic for which there are very few, if any, hard facts to evaluate, but a lot of opinions and conclusory statements. Such information should not be summarily discarded but should be recognized for what it is. Seems to me that a lot of people in science class feel that because they label their opinions and conclusory statements as “scientific,” they should be accepted as unquestionably reliable.^4

 

I have not seen the scientific faction posit any actual FACTS that tend to disprove God’s existence. Conversely, I have not seen any religious poster posit any FACTS that tend to prove God exists. But that seems appropriate in a forum where everyone is coming from a position of “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up."^5

 

What we have in this discussion is people who are weighing their own observations, beliefs and opinions and drawing implications through the filters of their pre-disposed position on whether God exists. I continue to contend that one’s view of God determines how that person views any of these other controversial topics. No one here seems willing to dispute that observation.^6

 

It is not my hope or expectation in posting here that I will somehow intellectually convince a non-believer to become a believer. I would be as much a fool to think so as the science faction would be in thinking they could undermine my beliefs.^7

 

My hope is that the science faction could recognize and admit that they are as close minded as they accuse religious people of being. Also, I suggest that science is not always exact, it is not always reliable and sometimes it is absolutely wrong. It is not 100 percent accurate.^8

 

Therefore, I find it unwise to place my complete trust in such a system and question the wisdom of those who would.^9

 

What a complete and total deliberate misread of my position!

 

^1. I wrote that ID was a religion and not science. The reason was simple. The ID advocates had not subjected their positve assertions to valid testing for negation. There is nothing arrogant in that statement.

 

If the statement I wrote is in-correct; then the proof is simple. Cite the experiment or the observation for predicted effect or the field study for predicted anomalies that is underway for testing the ID hypothesis.

 

Marshalling co-incidences, citing statistical studies and in short claiming the universe is too complicated to understand as anything but a created thing is unproven, but not unprovable. If ID designers say it is, then they assert this kind of logic.

a. This universe was created by a super-intelligence.

b. We can see this in the way the universe is put together.

c. We cannot prove this because we are;

1. Too stupid.

2. Too weak.

3. The design is beyond our detection threshold.;

4, We don't have the knowledge how yet.

 

^2 But that is precisely how the evidence about hydrogen was gathered originally; or don't you see this?

 

^3 Agreed. Its called the scientific method. As I asserted ever since post (38)

 

^4 First of all, I am an industrial contractor. The "science class" remark should be a warning shot in your own mind that the arrogance is reflexive. Second of all, if you read again what I wrote, you will read "clearly and plainly" that for ID arguments to be evaluated as SCIENCE then the scientific method must be applied to the evidence. I have not written, that I reject ID arguments. I wrote I EXPECT those arguments to be tested like any other hypothesis with experiments or predicted observations that would make a test for fallacy in the premise(there are gods). If the hypothesis stood up to the challenge of negation, then the ID argument would no longer be an argument. It would be a testable hypothesis with a set of predictions as valid as any other available for skeptical review To date the tests have not been done. Nor is there valid peer reviewable data to subject it to the skeptical testing that GR or SR or QM or the BB theories still undergo.

 

What the ID crowd fails to understand; is that for their arguments to be taken seriously by scientists(or any rational person), they must seriously test their arguments. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LITTLE DATA THERE IS! What we know about biology is 10x what we knew in 1850 when the theory of common descent(evolution) was first formulated. Similarly the situation in cosmology stands. We know about 4x now about cosmology what we knew when http://Georges Lemaitre began laying the groundwork for the Big Bang theory.

 

^5 Facts? All I have to do is continue to test for the existence of a god until one turns up. What have the ID guys done?

 

^6 I pointed this out before. Its called demand expectations and observer bias.

 

^7 I stated this at least five times. I don't care about beliefs. That is a matter of "religion". But if you argue ID as science then accept the SCIENCE and don't complain when rational people meet you on that ground and play by those rules. If I call ID advocates on the lack of testing and experimentation to disprove the ID hypothesis, and further hammer them on the difference between the legalistic approach and the scientific approach in evaluating evidence then they complain about this? I'm sorry if they don't like the field of play, but it is the game and rules in which they seek to compete. This "game" is a methodology for evaluating evidence skeptically. It is not some political popularity contest.

 

^8 Any scientist or rational person who believes that the best current explanation is immutable is a fool.

 

It would be a testable hypothesis with a set of predictions as valid as any other available for skeptical review To date the tests have not been done. Nor is there valid peer reviewable data to subject it to the skeptical testing that GR or SR or QM or the BB theories still undergo.

 

As General Relativity is being tested right now by the Gravity B probe;

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

 

I hate repeating myself, but if that is what it takes to make it clear what I wrote?

 

^9 One more time. I don't care about faith in this argument. I care about results and explanations. Assertions are not proof.

 

Assertion;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:assertion

 

a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

 

Proof;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:proof

any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"

 

And if those who advocate ID read the definition of proof?

 

Follow it.

 

ADDENDUM; http://Georges Lemaitre was a practicing Roman Catholic, as am I.

 

Best wishes;

[C1ay]

if the universe has existed for all eternity, all the models showing an age of 8-14 billion

years are wrong. also the universe would have to be infinite or the expanding galaxies would have reached the outer border. also i question if a circular universe (as some have proposed) would not have borders. if the universe is expanding, does that not mean it was once smaller? i do not know these answers, but i would like to hear more possibilities. as i said, my mind is open and i welcome learned discourse.

No, it doesn't mean those models are wrong. There very well could have been an event 8 to 14 billion years ago that redistributed matter that was already in existance. I think the evidence is strong that something happened in that neighborhood of time. The expansion we see seems to indicate that some matter is travelling apart. We see a lot of redshift but some blueshift also exists. There is also some evidence that some of the systems we see are older than the big bang event. I do not think there is any evidence that such an event specifically created matter or energy. It could have bu, observable evidence does not tell us that it absolutely did. We know nothing of the time before this event and think we would need to know that to draw any conclusions.

[damocles]

By daytonturner

 

If I tell you Hagen-Das French Vanilla ice cream is the best tasting ice cream ever made, you can disagree but there is no objective test to prove me wrong. And even if you could show that no one else in the world shared that opinion, it would not make it any less real to me. Can you conclude that I am wrong?

 

I can.

 

There is a test.

 

Its called an opinion survey;

 

http://www.statpac.com/customer-satisfaction.htm

 

Now it won't give you any data about your opinion's validity to you; but it will give data on the validity of your opinion about Hagen-Das French Vanilla ice cream , as held by a test group in an experimental setting, to others(me).

 

It is repeatable.

It can be varied.

It can be peer reviewed.

 

So your statement is not factually correct.

 

Best wishes;

[daytonturner]

A couple of totally subjective observations –

 

C1ay is very adept at avoiding the main issue by playing “picky, picky, picky” with some irrelevant aspect of someone else’s post. This is a good tactic in both war and debate – if you cannot challenge the main force, pick at the fringes as a diversion.

 

damocles insists on maintaining the hard line “science” position that subjective reasoning must be verified by objective proof while objective reasoning cannot be scrutinized by subjective observations.

 

Value of the subjective in "proofs" --

 

Assume that persons A and B are long dead and not available for comment. Based on my observations of their relationship, I conclude they were in love with each other while you, based on your observations, conclude they hated each other. These are both subjective evaluations based on what may or many not be similar observations.

 

If we are interested in determining whether A and B loved or hated each other, we can only look at the various observations made and attempt to determine from those which is the most likely case. Barring some piece of hard core convincing evidence beyond the observations, we can never “know” for sure whether A and B loved each other. We might each be able to convince others of our position, but we will never really know.

 

If one of us demands objective proof from the other without having objective proof of our own, is that not something of an unreasonable demand?

 

And this is what we have in the discussion of creationism and intelligent design. We have the science community which lacks objective proof for its position demands objective proof of creationism.

 

But now let assume that I have come up with a letter from A to B in which A says, “I love you, B.” You then point out that A beat the crap out of B every day of the week before and after the letter was written. I counter that beating the crap out of B was A’s way of showing love. You counter that no one who “really” loves someone else would beat the crap out of them every day. So, did A and B love each other? The only objective piece of evidence is the letter. Does it outweigh your observations and opinion?

 

Here we have a circumstance in which the subjective interpretation of A’s actions probably overrules the objective evidence in the letter.

 

If we are really interested in determining whether A & B loved each other, we must look at both the objective and subjective evidences. I am easily going to win this argument if I can keep you from presenting your observations and your subjective interpretation of them.

 

This, in essence, is what the science community insists must take place in a scholastic discussion of the origins of the universe and life as well as topics such as evolution.

 

If the subjective observations and conclusions made by the creationist (ID) community are only so much male bovine feces, one would think everyone could easily see that and the science community should harbor no fear that it would subvert their position.

 

The problem is that creationism (and ID), even if supported only by subjective reasoning, has a strong enough argument and presentation that it can subvert the “scientific” interpretation of available observations.

 

I do not advocate for the idea that people must believe creationism or even that creationism is the only possible conclusion. I advocate only for a level playing field.

[daytonturner]

So, damocles, you do agree that subjective valuations have significance and weight. However, you have proved only that my tastes do not coincide with the popular opinion. It is possible that based on an objective analysis of the various ice creams, my favorite is the most healthy, most nutricious very best ice cream ever made. But wait!! What am I doing??! That's your argument. No, not exactly, I was right, but for the wrong reason. Creationism may be right but they just haven't proved it yet. That is the science of theory isn't it?

[damocles]

A couple of totally subjective observations –

 

C1ay is very adept at avoiding the main issue by playing “picky, picky, picky” with some irrelevant aspect of someone else’s post. This is a good tactic in both war and debate – if you cannot challenge the main force, pick at the fringes as a diversion.

 

damocles insists on maintaining the hard line “science” position that subjective reasoning must be verified by objective proof while objective reasoning cannot be scrutinized by subjective observations.

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I do not advocate for the idea that people must believe creationism or even that creationism is the only possible conclusion. I advocate only for a level playing field.

 

For some reason you persist in misreading what I write.

 

First of all; what does your A loves B example; have to do with this simple(yes I wrote SIMPLE problem) of determiningy whether Intelligent Design is a hypothesis with a set of assertions that can be tested?.

 

To make Intelligent Design a viable theory, it has to be skeptically tested like any other explanation of how.

 

There is a METHODOLOGY- a well-tried and proven methodology that gives consistent evidence and results subject to repeatable verification and analysis.

 

It is the scientific method.

 

It is a way to approach, observe and analyze phenomena as a class and in the specific..

 

Let us take your A loves B example:

 

1. Define love.

Love:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/love

 

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance......

(for the complete definition follow the link provided.D).

 

2. Define harm.

Harm;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harm

n.

1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.

2. Wrong; evil.

tr.v. harmed, harm·ing, harms

To do harm to......

(For further follow the link provided. D.)

 

Now then.

 

How do we build the experiment?

Simple.

A is the male?

B is the female?

 

1. We examine A's police record and we autopsie B.

2. We research the background of the letter to find out the context in which A wrote it.

 

Then we compare the specific case of "A loves B" against our well established data base we accumalated on domestic violence.

 

And we conclude from pattern matching the physical evidence;

http://psychcentral.com/library/domestic_abusers.htm

 

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/11425-4.asp

 

That while A may claim to "love" B, he actually has a history as a mentally disturbed individual incapable of showing the empathy to his partner that is the first requiement of love. QED, I have demonstrated by physical evidence that A did not love B, at least in a clinically healthy way.

 

By Daytonturner

 

I am easily going to win this argument if I can keep you from presenting your observations and your subjective interpretation of them.

 

You lose.(See above.)

 

By Daytonturner

 

This, in essence, is what the science community insists must take place in a scholastic discussion of the origins of the universe and life as well as topics such as evolution.

 

Error. No scientist would approach this problem scholastically.

 

About scholasticism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

 

The scholastics would choose a book by a renowned scholar, called auctor, as a subject of investigation, for example the Bible. By reading the book thoroughly and critically, the disciples learned to appreciate the theories of the auctor. Then other documents related to the source document would be referenced, such as Church councils, papal letters, anything written on the subject, be it ancient text or contemporary. The points of disagreement and contention between these multiple sources would be written down. For example, the Bible has apparent contradictions and these have been written about by scholars ancient and contemporary, so a scholastic would gather all the arguments about the contradictions, looking at it from all sides with an open mind.

 

Once the sources and points of disagreement had been laid out, through a series of dialectics the two sides of an argument would be made whole so that they would be found to be in agreement and not contradictory. This was done in two ways.

 

First, through philological analysis. Words were examined and it would be argued they could have more than one meaning, that the author could have intended the word to mean something else. Ambiguity in words could be used to find common ground between two otherwise contradictory statements. Second, through logical analysis which relied on the rules of formal logic to show contradictions did not exist, but were subjective to the reader.

 

That is in adversarial argument over assertions; like lawyers. Didn't I just pound it through the concrete that SCIENCE isn't law? Law is opinion. Science is explanation based on best available tested evidence.(For the tenth time.)

 

That is why no scientist would use the scholastic method. Instead, he presents his evidence to peer review and defends his conclusions based on his results.

 

By Daytonturner

 

If the subjective observations and conclusions made by the creationist (ID) community are only so much male bovine feces, one would think everyone could easily see that and the science community should harbor no fear that it would subvert their position.

 

The problem is that creationism (and ID), even if supported only by subjective reasoning, has a strong enough argument and presentation that it can subvert the “scientific” interpretation of available observations.

 

I do not advocate for the idea that people must believe creationism or even that creationism is the only possible conclusion. I advocate only for a level playing field.

 

I WON'T let you shift the argument off the bedrock of proving ID assertions by a test for negation(the scientific method in application to test any hypothesis), to the shifting sands of saying, "you scientists don't have definitive proof that it is not possible and I don't have to prove that it is to prove that it is."

 

That is not an acceptable argument you would attempt. It is an attempt to justify the theory of ID by demanding that its assertions is proven by the lack of a verifiable testing of the premise.

 

Even if anyone were foolish enough to follow you onto that quicksand of fallacious thinking, that is not an acceptable statement for rational men. There IS a test for negation. I gave it to you about fourteen posts ago. Try to prove that a god does not exist and FAIL.

 

Failing that; provide evidence that you tested for local fortuitous violations of causality; seeking to prove that those events do not occur out of the statistical mean, and that you were unable to disprove "miracles".

 

Otherwise?

 

Go in peace.

 

Best wishes;

[questor]

perhaps it might be interesting to have a post on which those who support creationism could list the reasons for their belief and those who believe there is some other explanation for the presence of the universe could list the reasons for their belief. of course, this does not prove anything but the relative merits of logic and subjective evidence. at least this may get us off the semantic problems and petty squabbling.

[questor]

anyone interested?

[damocles]

So, damocles, you do agree that subjective valuations have significance and weight. However, you have proved only that my tastes do not coincide with the popular opinion. It is possible that based on an objective analysis of the various ice creams, my favorite is the most healthy, most nutricious very best ice cream ever made. But wait!! What am I doing??! That's your argument. No, not exactly, I was right, but for the wrong reason. Creationism may be right but they just haven't proved it yet. That is the science of theory isn't it?

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or do you know how proper opinion surveys are formatted?

 

There is nothing subjective in the methodology if you double blind the survey with a control group and use blank keyed labelling so that the taster has nio idea if he is tasting Hagen Das or Dairy Queen.

 

Look here;

 

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman04.pdf/$file/sciman04.pdf

 

and read in TOTALITY.