125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[All Becomes New]

No. Could you please try to inform yourself
a bit better? You aren't ready to play here yet.

I found this handy dandy image on the internet. What I can say is that a theory is open to be revised while a law is not. Is evolution a law?

Now, what I would like to know is why irreducible complexity is not a theory.

 

[Gene2memE]

Seemed to be for the time.

Your seeming and my seeming are VERY different

No, scientific theories require repeatability. That is all they require.

Scientific theories require A LOT more than just repeatability.

They also need to parsimoniously explain all of the available evidence/results, be testable/falsifiable, and have useful predictable power. Other criteria generally include scope for modifiability and improvement, a framework that has general applicabilty/utility and high degree of efficiency.

If you want a new theory to replace an existing theory, it must be better at explaining the available evidence/results and have better (more precise or useful) predictive power than the existing theory.

ID fails to make the grade as a theory and falls even further short of being a candidate to replace evolutionary biology. It's not even viable as a alternative to abiogenesis, which is mostly still stuck in the hypothesis stages.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, scientific theories require repeatability. That is all they require.

I wonder if you've thought through the implications of the sciences abandoning methodological naturalism?

 

[All Becomes New]

Your seeming and my seeming are VERY different

People believed the reason that the planets acted as they did was because of a physical but invisible apparatus that guided them.

Scientific theories require A LOT more than repeatability.

Allow me to reframe what I said: For scientific theories to be made, all that is required is repeatability. In other words, if something is a repeatable phenomenon, then the rest that you talk about can follow to make a scientific theory.

 

[All Becomes New]

I wonder if you've thought through the implications of the sciences abandoning methodological naturalism?

Your right. It would probably be worse because then scientists would become magicians and try and manipulate things supernaturally. Forget I said anything.

 

[Astrid]

Your seeming and my seeming are VERY different


Scientific theories require A LOT more than just repeatability.

They also need to parsimoniously explain all of the available evidence/results, be testable/falsifiable, and have useful predictable power. Other criteria generally include scope for modifiability and improvement, a framework that has general applicabilty/utility and high degree of efficiency.

If you want a new theory to replace an existing theory, it must be better at explaining the available evidence/results and have better (more precise or useful) predictive power than the existing theory.

ID fails to make the grade as a theory and falls even further short of being a candidate to replace evolutionary biology. It's not even viable as a alternative to abiogenesis, which is mostly still stuck in the hypothesis stages.

I don't even think it's repeatability, but
reproduceability.

 

[Gene2memE]

Allow me to reframe what I said: For scientific theories to be made, all that is required is repeatability. In other words, if something is a repeatable phenomenon, then the rest that you talk about can follow to make a scientific theory.

You don't appear to be differentiating between a scientific law and a scientific theory.

If something is a repeatable phenomenon, you can formulate a scientific law. This describes the observation of that phenomenon. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, for instance, describes the behaviour of physical objects in relation to each other. It's useful in most frameworks, except for the very small or the very large/very fast/very high energy (where it breaks down and the laws of general relativity are more useful).

A theory is the framework that provides the underlying explanation of observations described by the law.

 

[All Becomes New]

A theory is the framework that provides the underlying explanation of observations described by the law.

There should be a theory of the supernatural, then.

 

[Gene2memE]

There should be a theory of the supernatural, then.

Given that there are no repeatable observations of anything supernatural (nor, for that matter, any reasons to think anything 'supernatural' actually exists), this would be a non starter.

 

[dlamberth]

There should be a theory of the supernatural, then.

There are a zillion theories of the supernatural. So I don't know how anyone could do that.

 

[All Becomes New]

Given that there are no repeatable observations of anything supernatural (nor, for that matter, any reasons to think anything 'supernatural' actually exists), this would be a non starter.

There's plenty of reason to believe in the supernatural.

 

[partinobodycular]

There's plenty of reason to believe in the supernatural.

I'll accept that there are plenty of reasons to "want to" believe in the supernatural, it's just that one of them isn't "credible evidence". And for some of us that's pretty darn important.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'll accept that there are plenty of reasons to "want to" believe in the supernatural, it's just that one of them isn't "credible evidence". And for some of us that's pretty darn important.

Define credible evidence.

I've experienced supernatural things, Lots of them. They range from happy coincidences to healing in the name of Jesus. This is a topic some Christians try and tackle from a more evidence-based approach. For example, Craig Keener has written several books on the subject of miracles.

 

[partinobodycular]

I've experienced supernatural things, Lots of them. They range from happy coincidences to healing in the name of Jesus.

As I'm sure you're well aware, at this point in my life I'm going to dismiss such anecdotal evidence out of hand. And it has absolutely nothing to do with me being a naturalist... I'm a solipsist. I question everything. If something is demonstrably true... great, but if it depends on me having to accept someone else's word for it... sorry, but I've seen too many seemingly normal people believe in too many completely ridiculous things, for me to just accept someone's word for something without a whole bunch of corroborating evidence.

And I have to admit, that so far the supernatural is batting 0 for 67 years. But if you've got evidence bring it on... just don't make it anecdotal.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm a solipsist.

I'm so sorry.

But if you've got evidence bring it on

I mentioned Craig Keener's books.

 

[Gene2memE]

There's plenty of reason to believe in the supernatural.

Nothing that rises to simple standards of evidentiary warrant. Not being able to explain a thing or event does not justify a claim of that being supernatural.

 

[All Becomes New]

Nothing that rises to simple standards of evidentiary warrant. Not being able to explain a thing or event does not justify a claim of that being supernatural.

And as soon as we could explain it, it would no longer be considered supernatural. So what you have done is create a catch-22 for anything supernatural existing.

 

[USincognito]

I found this handy dandy image on the internet. What I can say is that a theory is open to be revised while a law is not. Is evolution a law?

One of the most common misconceptions about science is that science proves things. It doesn't, though not in the way most people would think upon hearing that.

Proofs are final and not subject to further revision. In science noting is final. All propositions and conclusions must be subject to future change or falsification if new data warrants it. That goes for things as set in stone as heliocentrism or gravity making objects attract. Will conclusions like that be changed or overturned? No, but the possibility must remain for them to be scientific.

Because of that possibility, things in science cannot be considered proven.
There is no hierarchy of hypothesis, theory and law. Each of them do separate things. Hypotheses are potential explanations for specific observations. Laws describe specific observations, usually in mathematical terms. Theories are explanations for bodies of related observations.

Nebular hypothesis proposes that stars form out of dust and gas in nebulae.
Accretion theory explains how planetary systems form around nascent stars.
Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe how planets move around stars once formed.

Now, what I would like to know is why irreducible complexity is not a theory.

The biggest problem is that test cases (flagellum, blood clotting, etc.) keep getting explained and thus there's no evidence supporting it.

 

[partinobodycular]

I mentioned Craig Keener's books.

Obviously I'm not going to go buy his book. But just to humor you I did go look for specific cases from them, during which I came across one that he seemed to find particularly inspirational, and that's the story of Jeff Markin. You're no doubt familiar with the case, and you'll certainly be disappointed when I tell you that I found it to be extremely unconvincing. As I alluded to earlier I'm concerned with the facts... not with emotion, or embellishments, or rhetoric...just the facts. And the facts in that particular case say that nothing supernatural happened at all. It's just a case of someone who was predisposed to believing in the supernatural interpreting events so as to fit that conclusion. Nothing more.

Now if that's a typical example of Craig Keener's cases then you've simply contributed to my ever growing inventory of people who see evidence for the supernatural that really isn't there. It's an inspirational story, if you don't bother to question it, but if you do then it's just another disappointing case of people seeing evidence that isn't there.

Unfortunately this isn't the right thread for this discussion. But at least now you know that if I ask for evidence, don't give me things like Craig Keener's books.

 

[USincognito]

And as soon as we could explain it, it would no longer be considered supernatural. So what you have done is create a catch-22 for anything supernatural existing.

The Catholic church sees that as a feature, while you appear to see it as a bug. When someone claims to have experienced a miracle, scientifically trained priests will investigate and only declare a miracle has happened after they've eliminated all natural explanations.