The Scientific Method

Status
Not open for further replies.

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is a section from Wikipedia:

Many modern philosophers of science[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.

My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations. If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history, then of course it will not accept any use of God in explanations for the geologic column or flood, etc.

If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!

I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
-lee-
 

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
laptoppop said:
Here is a section from Wikipedia:

Many modern philosophers of science[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.

My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations. If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history, then of course it will not accept any use of God in explanations for the geologic column or flood, etc.

If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!

I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
-lee-

Scientific answers don't include the supernatural since it's untestable. It doesn't mean that supernatural events are false or wrong, just that it can't be explained by science nor can science be used to back it up.

Problems come, however, when people try to use science to back up supernatural events. For example, some Creationists point to the Flood as the event that laid down the geological column. Here, they make a scientific claim that's falsifiable, which allows scientists to falsify their Flood. As long as Creationists do not make any scientific claims, then their position is not attackable by science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steen
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!

The problem is that your words don't match up with what creationism actually does. If creationism will never be "scientific" why do we have "creation science" and why do many creationists resort to scientific proof?

And I'm not just referring to those good old radiodating or no-transitional-fossil jabs. Even something as simple as "the floodwaters can't go 15 feet above the mountains in a local flood" is a scientific statement.

Creation science assumes that ever since creation (and barring the Flood and other miracles as such) scientific processes have continued unabated and uninfluenced by supernatural intervention. What is being tested is not the truth of the initial moment of creation, but the fact that what God initially created has only undergone 6,000-odd years of scientific alteration instead of a few billion years (depending on your particular flavour of YECism). And that statement is a scientific statement because of creation science's assumption that God has not intervened (and that God's interventions can only be supernatural) besides where explicitly stated in the Bible. As such, it can be proved scientifically false, even if the more general postulate that "God created everything only 6,000 years ago in only 6 days" cannot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steen
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
laptoppop said:
My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations.
It doesn't say that supernatural events couldn't occur. It says that Science can't measure or account for supernatural events, and as such, these are not part of Scientific Inquiry and results. So Science doesn't exclude supernatural explanations. It excludes supernatural events WITHIN SCIENCE.

If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history,
It doesn't, not "in history."

then of course it will not accept any use of God in explanations for the geologic column or flood, etc.
Within Scientific Exploration and Scientific Theories, yes.

If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!
Absolutely. But as supernatural events simply can't me measured and quantified, it cannot be part of science.

"Creationist Science" COULD exist, if the methodology adhered to the Scientific Method. However, I have NEVER seen any creationist claims or work that adhered to the Scientific Method, mainly because Creationism operates on (1) the conclution that God MUST be part of the equation, and as such, the conclusion that God did it is pre-determined, and (2) creationism mainly is not about evidence for their position, but rather that the established, evidence-suppported Scientific Theory of Evolution is wrong, and that therefore, evidence must be re-interpreted in a scope outside of the Scientific Method.

I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
-lee-
But it makes them non-scientific.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
laptoppop said:
If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific".
You're preaching to the choir, brother. TEs aren't the ones trying to push "creationism" into the science classroom. Of course, as others have aptly pointed out, the methodological naturalism of science does not say that miracles can't happen, just that they can't be detected by science.
I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
I think we all have. Your experiences, however, are personal, subjective, and unquantifiable. This is why science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

Glad you're seeing the light! :)
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Don't celebrate too quickly <grin>.

One of the prime issues I have with most biology curriculm is that evolution is not taught as one way things might have happened, but rather as settled history - i.e. "this is how things happened".
-lee-
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
laptoppop said:
One of the prime issues I have with most biology curriculm is that evolution is not taught as one way things might have happened, but rather as settled history - i.e. "this is how things happened".
Well, it's currently the best scientific theory we have. And I don't know that it's taught any more affirmatively than, say, the theory of gravity, heliocentrism, or germ theory... yet I don't see anyone complaining about them (even through heliocentrism is non-biblical).
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mallon said:
Well, it's currently the best scientific theory we have. And I don't know that it's taught any more affirmatively than, say, the theory of gravity, heliocentrism, or germ theory... yet I don't see anyone complaining about them (even through heliocentrism is non-biblical).

I'm going to emphasize the importance of what you say:

Heliocentrism is not non-biblical. The theory of gravity is non-biblical. Heliocentrism is counter-biblical. It directly opposes the cosmology explicitly relied upon by the authors of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
laptoppop said:
One of the prime issues I have with most biology curriculm is that evolution is not taught as one way things might have happened, but rather as settled history - i.e. "this is how things happened".
-lee-
Actually, Evolution DOES happen. That's a documented fact. The Scientific theory of Evolution is merely the Scientific Theory that brings all the data together in an explanation of how it happens.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution). Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
-lee-
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
laptoppop said:
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution).
Hmm, so YEC are saying that there is some sort of barrier throguh which no change can occur? What limits this, and how do we measure it? Are you saying YEC has indentified this, or is it more a belief, some kind of wishful thinking that Evolution therefore can't be true?

Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
What is a "kind" Does it have any meaningful correlate in Scientific terminology? Is "kind" the same as "Species," f.ex? OR Genus?

What is a "kind"
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
laptoppop said:
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution). Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
Question: What's a kind?
Answer: Any taxon in which we do not observe macroevolution.
Question: What's macroevolution?
Answer: Any evolutionary process that leads to new kinds.

You see where I'm going with this?
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
laptoppop said:
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution). Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
-lee-

Lee, the problem is there are many many Scientists from many different fields of study that do THEIR OWN research and come up with the same dates and times and the strata match to boot. This all comes together to give us an aproximate age of the Earth at 4.5 Billion years. That is a huge number. Many steps in Micro-Evolution lead to what is called Macro-Evolution. It's easier to think of lots of Micro-Evolutions going on lead to THIS. Not all of the sudden there was a huge jump and a Tyranosaurus laid an egg with a Gorilla in it. THAT WOULD BE REDICULOUS! It's a vast amount of time for "Micro-Evolution" to separate us bit by bit.

The problem that stands between is built right into your title. You aren't just a Creationist, you are a YOUNG EARTH Creationist. You are a literalist.

I wish that everyone had the opportunity to get out in the field and do their own research and see that these numbers just keep on adding up to Evolutionary scale, it'd be great, this conversation would stop. So while people do their research and have testable, verifiable numbers, YEC feel they can read a Bible LITERALLY and come to a more authoritative conclusion with hardly any study what-so-ever.

<edited>

I pray for you, that one day you will give yourself the freedom God has given me to see his stroke of genius in the beginning and how he has laid it out for us to now.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Mallon said:
Question: What's a kind?
Answer: Any taxon in which we do not observe macroevolution.
Question: What's macroevolution?
Answer: Any evolutionary process that leads to new kinds.

You see where I'm going with this?

I think I do:

What is a kind?
Answer: Any taxon in which we do not observe any evolutionary process that leads to new kinds.

It's using the word within the definition! That's not good....
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
vossler said:
,edited for consistency>

I'm all for prayer, please do pray for me, I most certainly do need it. :prayer:

Although the way you put it was cute, it's implication that I'm not a Bible Believer wasn't. I believe that Jesus, died, and rose again all for my sins. Hence, I'm a Christian. Mind telling me what proxy Jesus decided to pose his sermons in? Could it be parable? Are those true? Couldn't it have happened before then? Was there a house built on sand?

The answer to that last is the reason you're a dying breed, it's failure to put text within it's context(with the text). What went along with the text? What was going on?

There is a bit of Red-Herring in here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
TEBeliever said:
Although the way you put it was cute, it's implication that I'm not a Bible Believer wasn't.
I'm glad you saw the humor. :cool:

The rest of your observation is quite interesting. To what degree must one believe the Bible in order to claim being a Bible Believer? Over 50%? How about 75%? Or could it be 95%? Or are you an extremist and claim 100%?
TEBeliever said:
I believe that Jesus, died, and rose again all for my sins. Hence, I'm a Christian.
I suspected you were when I saw your postings here. Still, that too isn't always clear is it? Do you believe everyone whom you've met who said they were a Christian to be one?
TEBeliever said:
The answer to that last is the reason you're a dying breed, it's failure to put text within it's context(with the text). What went along with the text? What was going on?
That's certainly one way of looking at it.
TEBeliever said:
There is a bit of Red-Herring in here.
:) I believe there's a bit of Red-Herring in all of us, the question is how can you really know what is or isn't a Red-Herring.:p
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
From now on, I'm just going to point any YECist who thinks they're "Bible-believing" Christians above all others here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer.pdf

The Bible also teaches the world is flat. Do you believe that, too? Oh wait -- that's just "metaphor", right?
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
laptoppop said:
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution). Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
-lee-

Actually, this is an important issue. Microevolution does, indeed, deal with the smallish modifications that occur from generation to generation. Macroevolution, in the only way that an evolutionist can mean anything by it, deals with speciation. It is a hard division between populations such that breeding between the two cannot produce viable offspring (or any offspring at all). This has also been observed both in the lab and in nature.

However, you have brought in an important word: kind. This is not a word that is familiar to Evolutionary Scientists. The question is, what is a kind? The notion of a kind is as some boundary across which evolution does not permit a population to move. But the question that evolutionists ask is: what is this boundary? How do you measure it? Can you give an example of a boundary that cannot be crossed and provide some analysis as to why it cannot be crossed?

For the purposes of this discussion, we can introduce a new word: super-evolution. This is the idea that evolution permits crossing of lines that separate kinds. I would hypothesize that any meaning you wish to assign to "kinds," insofar as it corresponds to what Evolutionary Science says has occurred can be crossed by microevolutionary changes and that super-evolution is possible. All that remains is for you to define "kinds" in a scientifically measurable way, and we can test my hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
laptoppop said:
As virtually all folks that will be reading this probably know - one of the disagreements is the degree of variation (evolution). Most YECs don't have a problem with what we would call "micro" evolution -- variation within a "kind", but do not accept "macro" evolution - one "kind" becoming another in tiny steps.
-lee-

And the question is why creationists think that this is not possible? What evidence do they have that it is not possible?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Just because we're a "dying breed" doesn't mean we're willing to compromise the truth of God's Word. That is no reason to jump from the truth to a lie, I'd much rather die.
:idea: Maybe that's why we're a dying breed. :doh:

Well, my list of "creationists who don't think TEs are inherently inferior, less Bible-believing, and more prone to lying than them simply for accepting a particular set of scientific theories" just lost another name. Soon the list is going to get so short that I'll misplace it, and it probably won't make a difference because I'm getting cynical enough to believe that they're all like that inside, it's just a matter of whether they're polite enough to obfuscate it or not.

In any case, "microevolution" within the "dog kind", say, involves changes as dire as going from 78 chromosomes to 42. http://www.christianforums.com/t3118925-mutation-rates-a-bigger-problem-for-yecists.html
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.