A new article on the origin of DNA

[Tree of Life]

You are oversimplifying to the point that youre performing a rhetorical equivocation.

Have you done much reading in epistemology?

 

[VirOptimus]

There are plenty more assumptions that go into the big theories like the ToE.

So what? Someone might accept the empirical data points but take issue with some of the larger assumptions and might reasonably come to reject scientific theories like the ToE.

Ah, I see. Your "point" is that its "reasonable" to reject science and that religious beliefs are on equal footing with scientific findings.

 

[Tree of Life]

Like what?

The regularity of nature, for one thing. Are you familiar with Hume's problem of induction? We also assume the reliability of our cognitive faculties and other things like this.

But issues like that aside, we do not have a full evolutionary history for any living being on earth - let alone every living being on earth. We have enough data and reasonable theory to assume that life as we know it can evolve by way of random mutation and natural selection. And, if we reject special creation, then this is a plausible explanation for the diversity of life. But we do not know that any particular species came to be in this way.

Like what?

I think I've answered this above.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like what? What larger assumptions are you talking about?

He is a YEC...

 

[Tree of Life]

Ah, I see. Your "point" is that its "reasonable" to reject science and that religious beliefs are on equal footing with scientific findings.

To reject certain theories which go beyond pure empiricism is not to reject science as a whole.

 

[VirOptimus]

To reject certain theories which go beyond pure empiricism is not to reject science as a whole.

Heh, spoken like a true YEC.

 

[pitabread]

The regularity of nature, for one thing. Are you familiar with Hume's problem of induction? We also assume in the reliability of our cognitive faculties and other things like this.

You mean the uniformity of nature? This is something that can be and is tested. And it goes back to the idea of the universe is inherently objective. If it weren't, then all bets are off.

I'm also not sure to what extent you mean by assuming reliability of our cognitive faculties?

But issues like that aside, we do not have a full evolutionary history for any living being on earth - let alone every living being on earth. We have enough data and reasonable theory to assume that life as we know it can evolve by way of random mutation and natural selection. And, if we reject special creation, then this is a plausible explanation for the diversity of life. But we do not know that any particular species came to be in this way.

Technically speaking, we don't have a full ancestral history for any individual human including yourself. Perhaps you were specially created? Could you rule that out?

This again goes back to the assumption the universe is objective. If we assume the universe is objective we can only fall back to what things look like. And things look like they share common ancestry (and yes, this is testable).

It's also worth noting that special creation is not the null hypothesis of evolution or vise-versa. Not having complete knowledge on evolution does not necessarily imply special creation. If one wants to invoke special creation, then one needs to come up with mechanisms and observations that support such a claim. In absence of that, we have no reason to accept it.

 

[Tree of Life]

You mean the uniformity of nature? This is something that can be and is tested. And it goes back to the idea of the universe is inherently objective. If it weren't, then all bets are off.

Could you explain what you mean by the universe being objective?

I'm also not sure to what extent you mean by assuming reliability of our cognitive faculties?

When we do science we assume that the universe is understandable and that our cognitive faculties (perception, memory, reason, etc) give us reliable information and true beliefs. These things are not necessarily true and they are rather difficult to demonstrate so we just assume that they are true.

Technically speaking, we don't have a full ancestral history for any individual human including yourself. Perhaps you were specially created? Could you rule that out?

I have enough ancestral history to know that I came from another human being.

This again goes back to the assumption the universe is objective. If we assume the universe is objective we can only fall back to what things look like. And things look like they share common ancestry (and yes, this is testable).

I'm not sure that this is testable. What do you mean by this?

It's also worth noting that special creation is not the null hypothesis of evolution or vise-versa. Not having complete knowledge on evolution does not necessarily imply special creation. If one wants to invoke special creation, then one needs to come up with mechanisms and observations that support such a claim. In absence of that, we have no reason to accept it.

This is only true if science is your only method of acquiring knowledge. If science is your only method, then we have limited reason to accept special creation. I say limited reason because I think there is something to be said for fine tuning arguments. But we'll leave those aside for now.

But if we have other methods than science of acquiring knowledge then we can have reason to accept special creation. For example, if the creator happened to reveal himself and speak to us. If the creator revealed himself and told us that he created the world, that would be a good reason to accept special creation.

 

[durangodawood]

Have you done much reading in epistemology?

No.

But "belief" has enough different flavors that you shouldnt use the word in a discussion like this without revealing the one you mean. The game of catching non-religious-believers engaging in "beliefs" based on sensory evidence is really old and should be beneath us....because it obscures important distinctions.

 

[Tree of Life]

No.

But "belief" has enough different flavors that you shouldnt use the word in a discussion like this without revealing the one you mean. The game of catching non-religious-believers engaging in "beliefs" based on sensory evidence is really old and should be beneath us.

It's actually a very important and serious conversation to be had.

"Belief" in the technical sense (epistemological term) is simply an idea that we personally hold to be true. Beliefs are the only things that we have in our heads. Some beliefs are unfounded and they remain simply beliefs. But other beliefs have justifications and happen to be true. These beliefs amount to knowledge.

 

[tas8831]

"diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth"

I saw this a while back. That's a whole lot of coincidences that have to happen. Creation by a creator is also plausible.

Adding assumptions is not helpful - where did the creator come from?

 

[durangodawood]

It's actually a very important and serious conversation to be had.

"Belief" in the technical sense (epistemological term) is simply an idea that we personally hold to be true. Beliefs are the only things that we have in our heads. Some beliefs are unfounded and they remain simply beliefs. But other beliefs have justifications and happen to be true. These beliefs amount to knowledge.

Thats clearly wrong. We also have in our head a pre-ideated understanding of the material and emotional world and how to live in it. Thats our inheritance as creatures on earth who have evolved from pre-linguistic ancestors. And we can hold any crazy ideas we want, but short of brain damage, we cant really get rid of our bedrock pre-belief components of mind.

 

[Tree of Life]

Thats clearly wrong. We also have in our head a pre-ideated understanding of the material and emotional world and how to live in it. Thats our inheritance as creatures on earth who have evolved from pre-linguistic ancestors. And we can believe any crazy thing we want, but short of brain damage, we cant really get rid of that bedrock pre-belief component of mind.

Fair enough.

 

[pitabread]

Could you explain what you mean by the universe being objective?

It means that any measurements, observations, etc, aren't being subject to hidden manipulation.

Consider the thought experiment, "Does God have their finger on the scale?"

Imagine I wanted to weigh an apple. The apple, objectively speaking, weighs 250g. But imagine that whenever I weigh the apple, God presses down on the scale so that the scale shows double the weight (500g).

Even if I weigh the apple a hundred times I always get a result of 500g. Unless I have a way to determine God's interference in my measurements, what else can I reasonably conclude?

Now if I do assume that God is interfering with my measurements, how can I possibly get an accurate reading on a scale? How can I control for said interference?

When we do science we assume that the universe is understandable and that our cognitive faculties (perception, memory, reason, etc) give us reliable information and true beliefs. These things are not necessarily true and they are rather difficult to demonstrate so we just assume that they are true.

This reminds me of a quote from Star Trek: "We will start with the assumption that I am *not* crazy. If I am, it won't matter one way or another."

I have enough ancestral history to know that I came from another human being.

But you don't have complete ancestral knowledge. Which was the point of your original argument; in absence of complete knowledge of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, why rule out special creation?

In absence of complete knowledge for your own ancestral history, why rule out special creation?

I'm not sure that this is testable. What do you mean by this?

It's a matter of looking for patterns based on outputs from a specific process. IOW, if life shares common ancestry there are certain patterns we would expect of that. And we can test those patterns based on observations to see if those patterns hold.

This is only true if science is your only method of acquiring knowledge. If science is your only method, then we have limited reason to accept special creation. I say limited reason because I think there is something to be said for fine tuning arguments. But we'll leave those aside for now.

It largely comes down to what is testable and what yields useful empirical knowledge.

But if we have other methods than science of acquiring knowledge then we can have reason to accept special creation. For example, if the creator happened to reveal himself and speak to us. If the creator revealed himself and told us that he created the world, that would be a good reason to accept special creation.

But what you're actually talking about here is a book written by people. How could you otherwise test those claims (objectively) to determine whether or not that is true.

 

[Speedwell]

But if we have other methods than science of acquiring knowledge then we can have reason to accept special creation. For example, if the creator happened to reveal himself and speak to us. If the creator revealed himself and told us that he created the world, that would be a good reason to accept special creation.

It might be a good enough reason for you, but why should the rest of us take your word for it?

 

[durangodawood]

Fair enough.

What??? Youre supposed to argue like heck regardless!

 

[Tree of Life]

It means that any measurements, observations, etc, aren't being subject to hidden manipulation.

I use the thought experiment "Does God have their finger on the scale?"

Imagine I wanted to weight an apple. The apple, objectively speaking, weighs 250g. But imagine that whenever I weigh the apple, God presses down on the scale so that the scale shows double the weight (500g).

Even if I weigh the apple a hundred times I always get a result of 500g. Unless I have a way to determine God's interference in my measurements, what else can I reasonably conclude?

Now if I do assume that God is interfering with my measurements, how can I possibly get an accurate reading on a scale? How can I control for said interference?

Alright. I understand this to be a mixture of the reliability of our faculties and the regularity, or uniformity, of nature. We can call that universal objectivity. I agree that there is such an objectivity and that science is possible.

But you don't have complete ancestral knowledge. Which was the point of your original argument; in absence of complete knowledge of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, why rule out special creation?

In absence of complete knowledge for your own ancestral history, why rule out special creation?

I do not rule out special creation. I believe that God created the world!

It's a matter of looking for patterns based on outputs from a specific process. IOW, if life shares common ancestry there are certain patterns we would expect of that. And we can test those patterns based on observations to see if those patterns hold.

This sounds like begging the question. You are starting with the hypothesis that we do share a common ancestry. It's also possible that we appear to share a common ancestry but we, in fact, do not.

It largely comes down to what is testable and what yields useful empirical knowledge.

That is indeed what matters in science. But you know a great many things that you don't rely upon science to know. You know many things by way of testimony, memory, apriori knowledge, intuition, and moral sense, for example. Science is not our only way of knowing the world.

But what you're actually talking about here is a book written by people. How could you otherwise test those claims (objectively) to determine whether or not that is true.

How do we know that the Bible is God's word? That's a worthy question and a whole other discussion. But for now, can we agree that if God did indeed speak that his speech would be a source of knowledge that is distinct from scientific knowledge?

 

[Tree of Life]

It might be a good enough reason for you, but why should the rest of us take your word for it?

No one should take my word for it. But if God has spoken, they should take God's word.

 

[pitabread]

I do not rule out special creation. I believe that God created the world!

I meant specifically with respect to your own ancestors. In absence of complete knowledge of your own ancestral lineage, how do you know that God didn't just manifest some arbitrary humans along the way?

This sounds like begging the question. You are starting with the hypothesis that we do share a common ancestry. It's also possible that we appear to share a common ancestry but we, in fact, do not.

It's not begging the question, since it's based on an understanding of a specific process (e.g. biological evolution) and the outcomes we expect from said process.

Now if you want to believe that things just *look* like they share common ancestry, but they do not, then you're just invoking the problem of a non-objective universe. In absence of a method to determine which is which, there is little reason to not take the results at face value.

That is indeed what matters in science. But you know a great many things that you don't rely upon science to know. You know many things by way of testimony, memory, apriori knowledge, intuition, and moral sense, for example. Science is not our only way of knowing the world.

I never said that science was the only way of knowing the world. But if we're talking about specific subjects (e.g. understanding of biology) then it sure seems to be the best way to gather information thereof.

How do we know that the Bible is God's word? That's a worthy question and a whole other discussion. But for now, can we agree that if God did indeed speak that his speech would be a source of knowledge that is distinct from scientific knowledge?

I actually don't know how to answer that. Because if we take it on face value, would not God's speech in this instance just be another empirical observation?

I guess it boils down to how much you want to draw observations re: God into the real world and make them subject to empirical testing.

 

[Speedwell]

No one should take my word for it. But if God has spoken, they should take God's word.

I mean take your word that what you present was spoken by God--and means what you claim it means.