A challenge for creationists: evolution’s predictive power

[johnd]

Sir, I will freely post where I wish.

And your attempt to skirt my points is well noted. You have married the vain of macro-evolution. Fine. But you must learn to live with the marriage.

 

[LittleNipper]

Billllllions and billlllllions of years ago...
and ennnnormous explosion of emmmmense proportions....
​

Say Rocky, watch this guy pull a number out of his hat. Nothing up his sleeve... Presto! ---- no doubt about it evolution is error....

 

[Aggie]

Sir, I will freely post where I wish.

And your attempt to skirt my points is well noted. You have married the vain of macro-evolution. Fine. But you must learn to live with the marriage.

If you want to debate about geology, post a new thread about it. It’s off-topic in this thread, and these sorts of off-topic posts are against the rules here.

 

[juvenissun]

No, Creationism does not teach the principle of gravity. Last time I checked, it was still General Relativity Theory that teaches the principle of gravity.

Maybe you meant to say that Creationism is not in contradiction with the principle of gravity. But the same can be said of astrology, palm reading, and witchcraft. It does not make Creationism a science.

This does not worth my argument. Just get a science textbook used by graduate school of ICR and see what in it.

 

[busterdog]

Are you going to try and take my challenge in the OP, Busterdog? You said that other models can succeed with the data just as well as evolution does, and Gluadys said in that case you should be able to handle this challenge. You haven’t replied to what she said to you about that, but I’d like you to answer whether you’re able to come up with what I asked for in my OP.

Aggie, after reading this, consider explaining your challenge a little better for me to answer.

It is a very common notion that common design is the hallmark of a common creator. Similarity of design could mean many things. But, that is all the feathered dinosaur means to me. So the classic creationist response to your OP is to say that this is only evidence of a "common designer." If that is a "model", it also predicts that any more fossils will be similar to what we already have in our basic species groups.

What does this argument need to be "scientific" enough? It certainly is a tautology. But, many YECs have made and stand by the same arguments against macro/origins-evolution itself. You would have to let me know whether we are going anywhere on such questions.

I have argued extensively elsewhere that evolution is more "philosophy" than science. Thus, the woolly thinking (ie, legitimate, but more philosophy than science) of the upcoming Altenburg group as it struggles to address real science (discordant data) by reaching non-scientific, philosophical conclusions (a process of "self-organization"). http://christianforums.com/t6985420-an-unfortunate-relapse-more-dissent-from-darwin.html

If you look at the kinds of things that are being said in Altenburg, you are seeing the same vague notions about origins that characterize evolutionary theory itself. As many YECs say, macro-origins-evolution is not science.

You tell me whether we are getting or will get anywhere in this discussion about whether creationism is science, the Bible is science, evolution is science, etc.

So, your predictive model apparently says: 1. there were dinos and then 2. either a. dino DNA self-organized or b. dino DNA randomly mutated, then 3. the offspring had feathers and either thrived or died; 4. the evidence of reproducing feather dinos proves there was evolution.

My response, as in the other thread, to your 2a and 2b is as follows: 2a "self-organizing" is simply an expression of an unknown; and 2b, no one has ever proven that anything is random. Thus, you are in the realm of philosophy, not science anyway.

The only science that there is suggests, by your extimation, that there has been lots and lots of time working all this out with the tiny precursor animals being in older sediment. That is a completely different argument than "predictability" or any other sort of progressive adaptation as represented in anatomy.

 

[gluadys]

So, your predictive model apparently says: 1. there were dinos and then 2. either a. dino DNA self-organized or b. dino DNA randomly mutated, then 3. the offspring had feathers and either thrived or died; 4. the evidence of reproducing feather dinos proves there was evolution.

No, your predictive model is all wrong. You are looking for causes rather than not-yet-observed evidence.

 

[busterdog]

No, your predictive model is all wrong. You are looking for causes rather than not-yet-observed evidence.

That's what happens when you start with a tautology. (Evolution)

 

[lemmings]

That's what happens when you start with a tautology. (Evolution)

How is evolution a tautology? Either life will change and evolution will be right, or it won’t change and evolution will be wrong. It is not a statement that can be valid for all possible outcomes.

 

[Aggie]

Busterdog, I don’t understand the point you’re making. The point of your post seems to be that since evolution is based on flawed assumptions, it shouldn’t be able to predict anything that can’t be predicted just as well by any other theory, such as creationism. Is that what you’re saying? Because if it is, the point of my OP is that evolution can predict things that no other theory can, and I provided two examples.

All that I’m asking for is an example of a specific anatomical structure that’s been discovered, whose existence was predicted by creationism and no other theory. How accurately a theory describes reality can be measured by how accurate its predictions are. So if you’re right that evolution is based on flawed assumptions, you should be able to provide examples of fulfilled predictions that were unique to creationism just as easily as I can provide them for evolution.

 

[johnd]

yeah right

 

[johnd]

just never mind.

 

[Mallon]

It is a very common notion that common design is the hallmark of a common creator.

No it's not. "Common design" doesn't tell you anything about the likelihood of a common designer. It's nothing but an ad hoc, knee-jerk argument on behalf of special creationists. If you disagree, please have a shot at my Common Designer Challenge, which hasn't been met to date:

http://christianforums.com/t6873573-the-common-designer-challenge.html

 

[busterdog]

No it's not. "Common design" doesn't tell you anything about the likelihood of a common designer. It's nothing but an ad hoc, knee-jerk argument on behalf of special creationists. If you disagree, please have a shot at my Common Designer Challenge, which hasn't been met to date:

http://christianforums.com/t6873573-the-common-designer-challenge.html

All were made by humans. All represent adaptions for human convenience. Common Design. QED.

I don't know that we are capable of even discussing the issue, frankly.

Your position is so obviously tailored to a particular, philosophy, what I am I supposed to do?

Shernren remarks "goddidit". What does that mean? It may be a problem for scientific methodology. But no TE has ever put the slightest dent in the creationist position that "Goddidit" is a perfectly good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology. Now, dent means we stop shaking our heads, sit up and take notice as creationists. I am sure all you TEs disagree, but I can't fathom why you find that these things should be convincing to us.

We are mostly astounded that you think the argument has any validity outside of a narrow scientific model. I continue to be astounded that you presume a superior footing and the grounds to reject "Goddidit" outside you very narrow experimental window on the world. You continue to insist that science may encroach on philosophy and then refuse all reciprocity.

Having no new genome, the expermimental view of the world is, in our estimation, pretty limited. It does a poor job of looking backward. In doing so, it becomes just so much more of a platitude. Yes, I understand the hot debate on those matters, and that is probably much better ground for your to dispute with creationists. Altenburg announces that the vagueries of Darwinian origins philosophy are dangerously empty.

I could provide counterexamples of types of eagles on coins, suggestint the US Mint as a common designer. Should that convince you?

Maybe you presume that creationists expect common design to be so completely overwhelming that all TEs must accept it. I don't think that idea has much currency. Most understand the nature of the choice one makes. Reason does not dictate an outcome.

Reason does not dictate a common designer philosophy either. The point is the similarity of the positions. Both are a priori assumptions tailored to evidence that does not demand either conviction in and of itself.

My primary argument is the common origins argument. Altenburg suggests that evolution leads to inadequate wooly philosophy on the question of ultimate origins. It tries to substitute its own broad concepts. That is the common design of most flawed human thinking. Thus, my argument that evolution has a common designer: sin. Do I expect much conviction? Of course not.

 

[Mallon]

All were made by humans. All represent adaptions for human convenience. Common Design. QED.

The six inventions depicted in my Common Desgner challenge were created by two separate men. The challenge is to be able to distinguish between the designers by commonalities in their designs -- the same way that special creationists claim to do when inferring design in nature. You have not done this. So no QED. The challenge has not been met. You don't get to appeal to all humanity as a common designer since you don't appeal to a swath of gods in trying to explain away patterns in creation.

Shernren remarks "goddidit". What does that mean? It may be a problem for scientific methodology. But no TE has ever put the slightest dent in the creationist position that "Goddidit" is a perfectly good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology.

And we don't mean to. The point is that "goddidit" is not science. So let's be honest as Christians and stop pretending there's any sort of rigour behind the idea. It's an empty argument with nothing more than hearsay going for it.

 

[Paul365]

This does not worth my argument. Just get a science textbook used by graduate school of ICR and see what in it.

If the science textbook used by graduate school of ICR contains any better arguments for Creationism to be a science, please just post them here.

Otherwise it's fine also. Creationism does not fulfill the usual criteria to be a science. But this is not a point of high importance for me because in the end it's just arguing about how you define science. The problem of Creationism is not that it is not a science but that it gives a wrong description of how God created the world.

 

[gluadys]

Shernren remarks "goddidit". What does that mean? It may be a problem for scientific methodology. But no TE has ever put the slightest dent in the creationist position that "Goddidit" is a perfectly good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology.

What astounds me is that you can be here as long as you have and still so misread the TE position. Why should we object to "Goddidit" as "a perfectly good good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology"? Of course it is. It is just of no value at all as a scientific explanation of anything.

We are mostly astounded that you think the argument has any validity outside of a narrow scientific model. I continue to be astounded that you presume a superior footing and the grounds to reject "Goddidit" outside you very narrow experimental window on the world.

Well, we don't. Whatever made you think we did?

Altenburg suggests that evolution leads to inadequate wooly philosophy on the question of ultimate origins.

Again, I wonder if you read the same articles I did? As far as I could see the Altenburg conference is not about ultimate origins. It is about evolution and particularly the place of natural selection in evolution. Evolution has never been about ultimate origins.

You are practicing creationist eisegesis on these news articles.

 

[LittleNipper]

What astounds me is that you can be here as long as you have and still so misread the TE position. Why should we object to "Goddidit" as "a perfectly good good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology"? Of course it is. It is just of no value at all as a scientific explanation of anything.



Well, we don't. Whatever made you think we did?




Again, I wonder if you read the same articles I did? As far as I could see the Altenburg conference is not about ultimate origins. It is about evolution and particularly the place of natural selection in evolution. Evolution has never been about ultimate origins.

You are practicing creationist eisegesis on these news articles.

In my Christian walk, I see only that things grow worse and not better for the world. Every supposed "natural man" fix creates a two or more additional problems. Species are peril and the replacements are nothing but germs. Yet the evolutionist sees that somehow all species are the children of one specie and Father Time....

 

[busterdog]

What astounds me is that you can be here as long as you have and still so misread the TE position. Why should we object to "Goddidit" as "a perfectly good good worldview, opinion, philosophy or theology"? Of course it is. It is just of no value at all as a scientific explanation of anything.

My bad.

Well, we don't. Whatever made you think we did?

Words like "knee jerk" and "ad hoc." Glad I am wrong.

Again, I wonder if you read the same articles I did? As far as I could see the Altenburg conference is not about ultimate origins. It is about evolution and particularly the place of natural selection in evolution. Evolution has never been about ultimate origins.

You are practicing creationist eisegesis on these news articles.

And doing a darn fine job of it, I hope.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Evolution has never been about ultimate origins.

LOL! You're joking right? Tell me you're joking...

It may not be about ultimate origins to you, because you are a compromising TE. But, it is definitely about 'ultimate' origins for a large group of atheistic evos in the world. They don't want God to exist, and so in their futile imaginings, they concoct a worldview that tries to explain everything, including how space and time came into being without Him. And so to say that evolution has never been about the origin of the universe for example, is absolutely ludicrous and totally without foundation.

You are fixated on the idea that evolution is a mere mechanism in biological systems (when in fact, there is not one shred of evidence for it having occured, or being able to occur, thus your belief that God did it sometime in the unobservable past, and is still working through it - wow, your god is pretty slow). And of course you insist that God merely brought this mechanism into existence through His creative power. But aside from the fairytale arguments used by evos, why would God use death and suffering to bring about life in the first place? It doesn't make any sense to me. I have no idea how you could worship a god who operates in the way you think he does. It boggles the mind.

Biology has never needed the false assumptions of evolution to be understood. You have been duped.

 

[busterdog]

You are fixated on the idea that evolution is a mere mechanism in biological systems ....

I think you put your finger on it. What exactly is a mere mechanism?

More data about a biological function is presumed to be a better view of how things came to be. Now, more data may improve treatment of disease. That's a blessing to lots of ill people.

But, more data appears mostly to be increasing the improbability of the evolutionary model of random mutation and natural selection. All it ever seems to do is to solidify the watchmaker analogy.

Somehow evolution as a theory seems to think it is vindicated by incorporating more ciphers into its equations, simply because they are newer, fancier and more complicated ciphers. At least it seems that way to us YECs. Perhaps that is not quite so, conceptually. Now, all of us are ordered, mandated and compelled to give God the glory in all things. Much of what any of us writer never really does that.

Quote:
But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.
Here's what he told me over the phone:

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"​

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

We nip around the edges at best in giving credit to God in view of these long odds. Creationists make this mistake. But, many evolutionists seem phobic in this particular area and they get very annoyed when the creationist chorus sings any type of Allelujah whatsoever. It seems to matter greatly that the Allelujah's are voiced by folks who are happy to see man tracks and dino tracks in the same rocks in Paluxy. It should matter more that there is an Allelujah at all.

However, lets try to imagine what is really happening in TE world:

1. There is rejoicing at God's ability to pull off a vastly complicated exercise known in secular science as "self-organizing" (whatever the heckfire that is ) Putting on their T hats, the TEs are giving God the glory.

2. Darwinism has adopted concepts of mythic (indeterminate) proportions, such as self-organizing, which sounds like they have borrowed from theology in the process, but apparently have moved closer to the creationist camp simply because they have found a conceptual wall on the issue of why things are as they are. Putting aside the smart-allecky tone, I hope I get some TE agreement. Creationists should well understand that the notion of randomness is apparently being contained in the land of Darwin. These are good things.

3. We all agree that evolution happens, at least on a micro level and within species.

4. We still differ on timing, particularly where the meaning of the geologic column, astronomy, etc. are concerned. But, the overall divergence is perhaps more narrow than many thought.

5. Politically, we differ greatly. I still can't fathom why TEs are so uopposed to teaching ID in view of the above. The claims of ID are quite modest. I hear echoes of Jean Kirkpatrick talking about Robert All-I-Want-From-The-US-Is-Napalm D'Abusson: to paraphrase, he may be an SOB, but at least he's our SOB. The main distinction between ID and "self-organizing" is who came up with it and whether that camp tends to give God credit. To see ID vilified has done LOTS of damage to the credibility of TEs in the eyes of creationists. What it does is to cause these types of discussions to start with analogies to atheism. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could bury that hatchet! Altenburg and "self-organizing" may be old hat to some of you evolutionists, but I think that is a bit hasty to brush it off that way. Altenburg is saying a bunch of you evolutionists still have a warped and illegitimate fondness for randomness and you deserve to be embarrassed for hanging on so long to that concept. By comparison, ID looks pretty sophisticated, quite frankly, but I understand its not the evolutionists' horse.

6. And yes, Mr. Green, it is still largely about whether God is capable of creating without death.