Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Breckmin]

I will grant that the information that specifies a hurricane is quite different in character from the information that specifies a genetic code.

An ounce of honesty will get you a ton of respect from the opposing
argument. But let's see where that honesty leads...

But the hurricane is a useful example to show how complex structures can form out of purely natural processes.

What complext structures are formed because of a hurricane? Please be
specific.

Another useful example would be, say, a snowflake.

How do you know the process which forms a snowflake isn't designed as
well. Please be specific. How is the outside structure (not the chemistry)
or morphological design complex? Please be specific.

But the problem with that hypothesis still remains that there isn't anyway of determining whether or not it's true.

What about the alleged ways of determining it is true??? Why are you
ignoring this evidence? Please list the evidence by creationist which
makes the claim that you CAN determine it is true based on deduction.

So in the mean time science will continue to move forward using hypotheses that can be determined true or false.

Science was moving forward under the banner of theism long before
Darwin/Wallace/Huxley. Absolute knowledge of a Creator (based on
evidence you are not listing) is independent of science moving forward.

There are multiple ways to describe "natural",

Please note that you are discribing "natural" based on empirical determination,
but you have not substantiated how you know the empirical determination
is not based on an order that is dependent on the supernatural.
So let's start with a basic question: "How do you know "natural" anything
exists independent of supernatural cause? Or even supernatural sustaining
such emperical processes of order? Please be specific on how you know this.

but I will use a relatively simple one: anything that is "natural" can be explicitly described in such a manner that it is possible to empirically determine whether the description is true or false.

Please understand that your starting point is assuming "natural" and that
"emperical determination" is also somehow "natural" and independent of
supernatural cause, or supernatural sustaining order. How do you know
this?

Basically by definition, then, science can only deal with the natural.

But how do you know that natural even exists apart from the supernatural?
Please be specific.

Any claim that can never, even in principle, be determined true or false lies under the realm of the supernatural and does not belong in science.

There is clearly a difference between testing something, and supernatural
implication. Supernatural implication that is based on scientific evidence
and scientific testing is clearly NOT an appeal to ignorance, when the
claim is that it is falsifiable. If someone is claiming supernatural implication
based on repeated scientific observation, that is not an appeal to ignorance.

It is actually dishonest of opposing arguments to claim that it is. Only
one side is claiming ignorance and that they do not know. The clear
conclusion based on uniform and repeated experience is that information
has an intelligent source (just one example).

How do you know they point in the wrong direction? Because I can present evidence that disagrees.

And I can point to distinct species in the fossil record and missing
links. The stand off won't work. We have to first go back and examine
starting points, before we approach the inductions.

Except you can't use deductive logic to determine whether or not any claim about the natural world is true or false.

First, how do you know the world is "natural" and independent of the
supernatural??? Second, what about the alleged arguments that
deduction is used for both "information" and the formation of "nano
factories" (living cells). You can't make assertions without dealing
with opposing arguments basic premises.

obviously you must not believe computers work either, or that airplanes fly, or that buildings stay standing.

Clearly, this is a strawman because of uniform and repeated experience
with these mechanism/laws that are testable and observable.

That is quite different from universal common descent. For the record,
I never said "induction" always leads to error. I said that certain systems
use induction that leads to error (an in this case it would be the interpretation
of evidence based on induction which can lead to error-- particularly
on origins).

Induction is a good thing when it is testable and observable.

 

[Split Rock]

Since so many IDers believe in universal common descent, I don't see the contradiction. It seems to be this new proud wave for people claiming to
be Christians and TE'ist to reject ID and claim that it is faith based. This
ignores evidence. This ignoring of evidence is true ignorance until the
alleged evidence is considered honestly.

The only issue is what the Creator thinks, not what we are incorrect about.

It is the nature of truth, facts and reality to be in and of themselves
dogmatic. Our job is to discover what God already knows is reality.

Your definition of I.D. seemto be different from most people who post here. I think that is one thing causing misunderstandings in this thread. Could you please define Intelligent Design for us?

 

[sfs]

This simpleton view doesn't deal with all of the people who understood
it and believed it and bought into it hook line and sinker and then discovered
the foundational starting points of circular reasoning and 10's of
thousands of inductions which led to their aggregate deception.

It also doesn't differentiate between evolution that is observed and
universal common descent of all species. It is actually those who
never had enough foresight to question the circular reasoning going
on (with assumptions of natural requiring conclusions of natural) that
truly demonstrate they do not understand their own belief structure
which lead them down a slippery road with 10's of thousands of
inductions which crumble when dissected at their base.

There are in fact people who understand evolution and still reject it. Kurt Wise is one example -- he understands and acknowledges the evidence for an old earth and for evolution, but chooses to reject it in favor of (what he views as) the Biblical account of creation.

I've seen no evidence in this thread that you fall into that category, however, so perhaps you need to get more specific and technical in your responses. The thread title suggests this as a place to find answers about creationism. Well, I have any number of questions about creationism that I've never been able to find answers to. For example, what does creationism predict about where ERV insertion points should be in different species? What does creationism predict about genetic defects in the GULO gene in different primates? What does it predict about defects in the same gene in guinea pigs? What does creationism predict should be the single-base substitution divergence between humans and chimpanzees? What does creationism predict about how similar pairs of long terminal repeats will be, as a function of how many species share the pair?

There are many more such questions, all of which have quite specific and testable answers within evolutionary biology. Creationism will be taken seriously by scientists when, and only when, it starts providing answers to them. If you want to be taken seriously as a spokesman for evolution, those are the kind of questions you need to answer.

 

[Breckmin]

. Could you please define Intelligent Design for us?

It's a side issue that I don't want to get caught up in. Steve Meyer just
says something to the effect of there being certain features of the universe
and living things which are best explained by "intelligent cause" rather than
an undirected processes such as "natural selection."

In creationism, you still have principles in creation such as "survival of
the fittest" and speciation and alike, but these are not the result of an
unidirected process which is indepedent of a Creator. First, you have
to know that there IS a Creator. Then you can start looking at scientific
implications of scientific observation without the faulty glasses of
requiring everything to be somehow "natural" (without substantiating how
you know that "natural" actually even exists apart from supernatural
sustaining order, or original supernatural cause.

 

[Breckmin]

The thread title suggests this as a place to find answers about creationism.

That was a long time ago... and was somewhat tongue-in-cheek
regarding actually giving scientific answers. I am more than happy
to do that at a later time, but right now I am discussing the definition
for science requiring naturalistic explanation, and how do we know that
natural even exists.

Well, I have any number of questions about creationism that I've never been able to find answers to. For example, what does creationism predict about where ERV insertion points should be in different species?

The same points you expect to find them. It is not even an issue.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

Here's one article I could elaborate on, but it's not an issue of dispute
just an issue of interpretation based on commonalities.

What does creationism predict about genetic defects in the GULO gene in different primates? What does it predict about defects in the same gene in guinea pigs? What does creationism predict should be the single-base substitution divergence between humans and chimpanzees? What does creationism predict about how similar pairs of long terminal repeats will be, as a function of how many species share the pair?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to get side tracked. You have to understand
that with creationism, there really is no such thing as "random" for some
of us, because of God's state of ordination. So basically, you can't use
these types of inductions and comparisons to substantiate common
ancestry anymore than common trademark in creation. Not going to
stray off on these.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

There are many more such questions, all of which have quite specific and testable answers within evolutionary biology. Creationism will be taken seriously by scientists when, and only when, it starts providing answers to them.

Nothing to do with whether or not evidence for one belief system is
stronger than another belief system. An appeal to what scientists will
take seriously is consensus gentium.

If you want to be taken seriously as a spokesman for evolution, those are the kind of questions you need to answer.

Sorry, but my personal existence has nothing to do with evidence for
or against universal common descent. Evolution (as you probably think
of it) is observed, so we are still not on the same page as far as areas of
dispute. I don't care about being a spokesman for anything.

I only care about evidence and the data itself, and what we DO observe
scientfically, and what we DON'T observe taking place.

 

[Chalnoth]

What complext structures are formed because of a hurricane? Please be specific.

This was already answered: we're talking about the hurricane itself, not what the hurricane does. A hurricane is a complex structure.

How do you know the process which forms a snowflake isn't designed as
well. Please be specific.

That isn't even relevant. The point is that we can distinguish the specific natural process by which the formation occurs.

How is the outside structure (not the chemistry)
or morphological design complex? Please be specific.

What about the alleged ways of determining it is true??? Why are you
ignoring this evidence? Please list the evidence by creationist which
makes the claim that you CAN determine it is true based on deduction.

I don't see why I should do your work for you.

Science was moving forward under the banner of theism long before
Darwin/Wallace/Huxley. Absolute knowledge of a Creator (based on
evidence you are not listing) is independent of science moving forward.

Right, but even then they didn't attempt to make use of god as an explanation. At least not for anything that they were able to investigate.

Please note that you are discribing "natural" based on empirical determination,
but you have not substantiated how you know the empirical determination
is not based on an order that is dependent on the supernatural.
So let's start with a basic question: "How do you know "natural" anything
exists independent of supernatural cause? Or even supernatural sustaining
such emperical processes of order? Please be specific on how you know this.

I don't even see this as being relevant. I don't need to know that they are independent. All I do need to know is that I can only investigate the natural, and so if I do investigate the natural and find consistent answers readily, then that seems to speak against there being anything else going on.

But how do you know that natural even exists apart from the supernatural?
Please be specific.

Well, that's pretty easy: Occam's Razor. It is easy to hypothesize a perfectly-natural universe that is fully consistent with all evidence. Anything supernatural, then, would be an unevidenced hypothetical entity, and therefore highly unlikely.

There is clearly a difference between testing something, and supernatural
implication. Supernatural implication that is based on scientific evidence
and scientific testing is clearly NOT an appeal to ignorance, when the
claim is that it is falsifiable. If someone is claiming supernatural implication
based on repeated scientific observation, that is not an appeal to ignorance.

And every time it's possible to test a supernatural claim like this, it turns out to be false.

It is actually dishonest of opposing arguments to claim that it is. Only
one side is claiming ignorance and that they do not know. The clear
conclusion based on uniform and repeated experience is that information
has an intelligent source (just one example).

All it takes is one counterexample. And we have one: DNA.

Clearly, this is a strawman because of uniform and repeated experience
with these mechanism/laws that are testable and observable.

Like what?

That is quite different from universal common descent. For the record,
I never said "induction" always leads to error. I said that certain systems
use induction that leads to error (an in this case it would be the interpretation
of evidence based on induction which can lead to error-- particularly
on origins).

Like what, specifically?

Induction is a good thing when it is testable and observable.

You're implying that somewhere it isn't. Where would that be?

 

[sfs]

That was a long time ago... and was somewhat tongue-in-cheek
regarding actually giving scientific answers. I am more than happy
to do that at a later time, but right now I am discussing the definition
for science requiring naturalistic explanation, and how do we know that
natural even exists.

To be blunt, I don't believe you. I very much doubt that you will ever discuss scientific evidence or arguments in any meaningful way. It's much easier to talk about philosophy than data.

As for science and the natural, science doesn't even have a definition of the natural, or what counts as a naturalistic explanation, so it can't have a requirement that explanations be naturalistic. What it does have is a strong requirement that all proposed explanations be testable. That's why people with radically different world views (both atheists and theists, including theists who believe in miracles) do science in ways that are indistinguishable, and come to common conclusions.

The governing assumption of science is not that the supernatural doesn't exist, but that testable explanations can normally be found for physical phenomena. So far that assumption has held up very well.

The same points you expect to find them. It is not even an issue.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

The page you link to is an good example of why the earlier poster made the comment about anti-evolutionists who don't understand evolution. Either the authors of this piece don't understand how ERVs serve as evidence for common descent, or they are simply choosing to ignore what they know, since it doesn't actually address ERVs as evidence for common descent.

Here's one article I could elaborate on, but it's not an issue of dispute
just an issue of interpretation based on commonalities.

The article didn't interpret the evidence; it ignored the evidence. It also didn't answer my question: what is the creationist prediction for the sharing of ERV insertion points between different species? That's where the evidence for common descent lies.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to get side tracked. You have to understand
that with creationism, there really is no such thing as "random" for some
of us, because of God's state of ordination. So basically, you can't use
these types of inductions and comparisons to substantiate common
ancestry anymore than common trademark in creation. Not going to
stray off on these.

It is also true for many (probably most) theistic evolutionists that random events are subject to God's will as much as any other part of creation. That issue has nothing to do with the scientific meaning of "random" as it applies to biology. "Random" mutations are usually not even random in terms of physics and chemistry: they have deterministic explanations, given the precise conditions present when the mutation occurred.

What biologists mean by "random" here is that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism, e.g. that mutations that confer a new trait are not more likely to occur just because the trait would be useful. In this sense, whether mutations are random or not is not a philosophical question, but an empirical one: observe organisms in different environments, and see whether certain mutations are more likely to occur when they would be favorable than when they would be harmful. Based on quite a lot of evidence, mutations are indeed random -- in the relevant sense of random. Whether "random" mutations are part of a creator's design is not a question addressable by science, at least until somehow figures out how to devise a test to answer that question.

And yes, you can compare the success of "common descent" and "common trademark" using these kind of inductions. Which model is better at making predictions about what features you will observe as you collect new data? The model that predicts better is more likely to be the correct model.

Sorry, but my personal existence has nothing to do with evidence for
or against universal common descent. Evolution (as you probably think
of it) is observed, so we are still not on the same page as far as areas of
dispute. I don't care about being a spokesman for anything.

If you don't want to be a spokesman for creationism, stop writing as a spokesman for creationism -- it's not hard to do.

Evolution, as I think of it, includes common descent, and is currently the only successful model for explaining the observed reality of the biological world. No other model, whether naturalistic or supernaturalistic (whatever you choose to mean by those terms) is remotely as good at explaining the data, that is, saying why we observe some things and not others, and at predicting new data that we can then collect.

That's why I find creationist arguments about world views and naturalistic assumption and the like to be pointless. Even if any kind of supernatural explanation is allowed, creationism is still useless as an explanation for biology, while evolution is very useful indeed. To me, that suggests that evolution is simply a better and more accurate model. I'd really like to hear from a creationist why that's an inaccurate conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The governing assumption of science is not that the supernatural doesn't exist, but that testable explanations can normally be found for physical phenomena.

This sentence doesn't even make sense --- (to me, anyway).

 

[Split Rock]

This sentence doesn't even make sense --- (to me, anyway).

Considering the fact that you give nothing but ad hoc answers to questions about the physical world, I am not surprised. What he is saying is that we can formulate testable explanations (ie ones that make predictions we can test) for phenomena we find in the physical world around us. Your "embedded age" model does this, despite your desire that it does not. Unfortunately, your embedded age model fails because its predictions fail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering the fact that you give nothing but ad hoc answers to questions about the physical world, I am not surprised.

Cute how you worded that --- you left two words out on your side of the equation.

Let me fix it for you:

Considering the fact that you give nothing but ad hoc answers to ad hoc questions about the physical world, I am not surprised.

 

[sfs]

This sentence doesn't even make sense --- (to me, anyway).

I mean something like this: the physical world and its behavior display patterns, consistencies that let us as humans predict observations that we haven't made yet. We do this by forming mental models of the world, based on the patterns we have seen, and extrapolating them to things we haven't yet seen. Since we all make these models, whether we are scientists or not, it is obviously possible to do so.

What scientists do is consciously and systematically search for these regularities. Our working assumption is that regularity is a common enough feature that we can always start looking for regularities to explain any particular observation; that is, to identify that observation as an example of a larger pattern. Doing science does not require, of either theist or atheist, a belief that regularity in physical phenomena is universal, or that testable explanations will always be possible. It does require, though, that we act as if an explanation does exist, and go out and look for it.

 

[Split Rock]

Cute how you worded that --- you left two words out on your side of the equation.

Let me fix it for you:

Too bad there is no such thing as an "ad hoc" question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean something like this: the physical world and its behavior display patterns, consistencies that let us as humans predict observations that we haven't made yet. We do this by forming mental models of the world, based on the patterns we have seen, and extrapolating them to things we haven't yet seen. Since we all make these models, whether we are scientists or not, it is obviously possible to do so.

What scientists do is consciously and systematically search for these regularities. Our working assumption is that regularity is a common enough feature that we can always start looking for regularities to explain any particular observation; that is, to identify that observation as an example of a larger pattern. Doing science does not require, of either theist or atheist, a belief that regularity in physical phenomena is universal, or that testable explanations will always be possible. It does require, though, that we act as if an explanation does exist, and go out and look for it.

This is all fine and dandy --- until these regularity patters encroach onto God and His Word --- then they're treading on Holy ground.

Example:

As soon as Jesus stepped off the shore and on to the water, what do these regularity patterns predict should have happened?

Does it conflict with what the Bible says happened?

How you resolve this conflict says a lot about you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad there is no such thing as an "ad hoc" question.

Hmmm --- ad hoc answers --- but no such thing as ad hoc questions.

Interesting.

 

[sfs]

This is all fine and dandy --- until these regularity patters encroach onto God and His Word --- then they're treading on Holy ground.

For me, all ground is God's ground and is holy ground.

Example:

As soon as Jesus stepped off the shore and on to the water, what do these regularity patterns predict should have happened?

Jesus would (more or less) sink.

Does it conflict with what the Bible says happened?

Yes.

How you resolve this conflict says a lot about you.

I resolve this by saying that either this was a comparatively rare instance where the normal patterns of the world did not hold, or the Bible is inaccurate in its statement about what happened.

 

[Split Rock]

Hmmm --- ad hoc answers --- but no such thing as ad hoc questions.

Interesting.

Yes. Answers and questions are not the same. Go ahead and give us a defintion of an "ad hoc question" that does not include the term "ad hoc" in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Answers and questions are not the same. Go ahead and give us a defintion of an "ad hoc question" that does not include the term "ad hoc" in it.

I like this one.

For this purpose. Meaning "to this" in Latin, it refers to dealing with special situations as they occur rather than functions that are repeated on a regular basis.

It fits to a tee:

• What happened to the Flood water = a one-time function
• Where did the Flood water go = a one-time function
• Embedded Age = a one-time function

 

[Chalnoth]

What part of that relates to a question, AV?

 

[Split Rock]

I like this one.It fits to a tee:

• What happened to the Flood water = a one-time function
• Where did the Flood water go = a one-time function
• Embedded Age = a one-time function

So, you are saying if something happens one time (even if to many things at once), then there can be no explanation for it??

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you are saying if something happens one time (even if to many things at once), then there can be no explanation for it??

I'm saying that if you ask me an ad hoc question, I will most probably come back with an ad hoc answer --- that is, if I can't give you a straight one.