Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

So when you say science must work from the assumption that the universe is, has been, and always will be uniform, what you actually mean is that scientists make the pragmatic assumption that the large-scale structure of the universe is largely the same across the universe? Because that's no different than assuming that the gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.81 m s[sup]-2[/sup] - it's not, but it's just a useful assumption that simplifies the maths.

Yes.

Like I said, uniformity has a quite particular definition in science. If that's the one you're using, I fail to see the problem, and your initial claim - "That is an assumption that is not based on empirical evidence" - is false.

No, it isn't. The evidence comes from the metaphysical assumptions. You are using a circular argument and don't even realize it.

Uniformity, as defined by your link, is very well supported by the evidence. We can look up and see. What's the problem?

You maybe simply unable to grasp the concept.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Exactly! You have it! Science cannot piggyback on the Christian worldview and claim it doesn't require evidence. Which it does.

I think we reached the core of the arguement.
You are making a positive claim here. I'm sure you know that means that puts the burden of proof on you.
You have to demonstrate that science piggybacks on specificly the christian world view. If you cannot demonstrate this then all of your arguements are moot.

 

[Nostromo]

Why would it annoy "religious types". It proves our point. Science, intelligence, order, laws of nature, laws of logic all support our worldview.

No, they're consistent with your worldview, and they're also consistent with a great many other worldviews.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it isn't. The evidence comes from the metaphysical assumptions. You are using a circular argument and don't even realize it.

Exactly what are these assumptions? What metaphysical assumptions are required to deduce cosmological uniformity?

We can simply look up into space and observe vast differences in large-scale structure - we know uniformity is false, just as we know gravitational acceleration isn't actually 9.81. As I said, it's a handy assumption for modelling this or that (much like the virial model of stellar dynamics). It's not a foundational assumption of science.

For instance, how, exactly, does cosmological uniformity affect, say, mycology, or the forensic sciences? If it's a foundational assumption of science, then the decidedly pragmatic assumption that stellar phenomena are uniformly distributed across the cosmos (an assumption we know to be false, but nevermind) should be deeply ingrained into mycology, no?

Or perhaps you'd like to change your definition of 'uniformity'?

You maybe simply unable to grasp the concept.

Ditto. But instead of slinging mud, I'm more interested in a civil exchange of ideas. Are you? If so, perhaps you'd like to explain why our observations through a telescope - observations which routinely disprove cosmological uniformity - rest upon any assumption of uniformity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, it isn't. The evidence comes from the metaphysical assumptions.

And what are you offering? Metaphysical assumptions without evidence.

Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think we reached the core of the arguement.
You are making a positive claim here. I'm sure you know that means that puts the burden of proof on you.
You have to demonstrate that science piggybacks on specificly the christian world view. If you cannot demonstrate this then all of your arguements are moot.

No, actually the claim that was first introduced was that if one was to accept God as existent, one must provide evidence for Him. That the evidence must be scientific, empirical and verifiable. When I then required the same for the opposing worldview, showing that metaphysical aspects are accepted in the opposing worldview, none were given.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction of the universe being uniform and orderly must be proven. We all agree that has been proven.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that we as humans were created with intelligence and that we being created in that image are intelligent and that has been proven true.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that the universe was made for us, and that earth is the only planet in the known universe that we could live unaided and that is proven.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And what are you offering? Metaphysical assumptions without evidence.

Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I didn't claim that I was not using metaphysical assumptions.


Improvement on what exactly?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

No, actually the claim that was first introduced was that if one was to accept God as existent, one must provide evidence for Him. That the evidence must be scientific, empirical and verifiable. When I then required the same for the opposing worldview, showing that metaphysical aspects are accepted in the opposing worldview, none were given.

So far though, you have not provided any evidence for this god. Admitted you have none.
And then tried to pretend like nothing has evidence to justify your worldview having none.
Its not a very good defense tactic.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction of the universe being uniform and orderly must be proven. We all agree that has been proven.

you cannot make predictions AFTER THE FACT.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that we as humans were created with intelligence and that we being created in that image are intelligent and that has been proven true.

See above

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that the universe was made for us, and that earth is the only planet in the known universe that we could live unaided and that is proven.

See above.

None of these are predictions.
You simply toke known statements about the universe and invented a reason for them (christian god) then tried to pretend as though these are predictions made? You know that does not work.

I could say right now the FSM is responsible for all that and be on equal ground, which is to say not very steady ground.

So..Why should anyone accept your world view?
We know why to accept science, cause it demonstrably works.
Say for a moment you assume christianity is true, how does that help you discern truth from fiction from the world, without using science?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly what are these assumptions? What metaphysical assumptions are required to deduce cosmological uniformity?

By assuming that what we see today will be the same tomorrow and in the future. We assume that gravity will still behave the way it behave today and in the future. We assume that our assumptions can be tested and verified. We assume that life had a beginning. Many, many assumptions are made every day that can not be tested and verified.

We can simply look up into space and observe vast differences in large-scale structure - we know uniformity is false, just as we know gravitational acceleration isn't actually 9.81. As I said, it's a handy assumption for modelling this or that (much like the virial model of stellar dynamics). It's not a foundational assumption of science.

Methodological assumptions The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]

• 'Uniformity of law across time and space: Natural laws are constant across space and time.[18]

• Uniformity of process across time and space: If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation.[17]

Source:

For instance, how, exactly, does cosmological uniformity affect, say, mycology, or the forensic sciences?

Metaphysics do. Forensic science is a good example in fact. Forensic scientists work with metaphysical assumption in doing their work consistently.

Source:

1. Introduction
The purpose of this article is to suggest research directions in
which the forensic identification sciences might proceed in order
to place their work on firmer scientific ground. The larger scientific
world is taking notice and insisting upon real science in forensic
identification (e.g. [1]).
First, however, we should remind ourselves of the core
assumptions that underlie conventional forensic identification,
and realize that they are based more on faith than on empirical
evidence, so that we can appreciate the need for improved research
and theory. These shortcomings are shared by all of the forensic
‘‘individualization’’ sciences, certainly including forensic odontology.

If it's a foundational assumption of science, then the decidedly pragmatic assumption that stellar phenomena are uniformly distributed across the cosmos (an assumption we know to be false, but nevermind) should be deeply ingrained into mycology, no?

I never claimed it was.

Or perhaps you'd like to change your definition of 'uniformity'?

I'm fine.

Ditto. But instead of slinging mud, I'm more interested in a civil exchange of ideas. Are you? If so, perhaps you'd like to explain why our observations through a telescope - observations which routinely disprove cosmological uniformity - rest upon any assumption of uniformity.

So I'm slinging mud by my statement? how about these:

Oh, and your claim that we can't have science without the supernatural is patently ludicrous. You might as well be claiming that we can't have pancakes without cows.

I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

You maybe simply unable to grasp the concept.

And that is slinging mud.

​

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, they're consistent with your worldview, and they're also consistent with a great many other worldviews.

Such as?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I didn't claim that I was not using metaphysical assumptions.

So back them up with something that works.

of course, if you could do that, you'd have done so already.

Improvement on what exactly?

The scientific method, for starters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So far though, you have not provided any evidence for this god. Admitted you have none.
And then tried to pretend like nothing has evidence to justify your worldview having none.
Its not a very good defense tactic.

Actually, I justified my worldview:


I showed that in my worldview that the prediction of the universe being uniform and orderly must be proven. We all agree that has been proven.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that we as humans were created with intelligence and that we being created in that image are intelligent and that has been proven true.

I showed that in my worldview that the prediction that the universe was made for us, and that earth is the only planet in the known universe that we could live unaided and that is proven.

Demonstrate how I failed to justify my worldview.

you cannot make predictions AFTER THE FACT.

The predictions came before the fact.

Before mankind existed.

See above

Same as above.

See above.

Same as above.

So Darwin made observations about what was already there and applied his theory to that fact. The fact came before the theory.

None of these are predictions.
You simply toke known statements about the universe and invented a reason for them (christian god) then tried to pretend as though these are predictions made? You know that does not work.

You know that science does this all the time, right?

I could say right now the FSM is responsible for all that and be on equal ground, which is to say not very steady ground.

You could. I don't think you could make a very good argument for it.

So..Why should anyone accept your world view?
We know why to accept science, cause it demonstrably works.

Only due to the worldview I hold.

Say for a moment you assume christianity is true, how does that help you discern truth from fiction from the world, without using science?

Why do you all assume that if we have God and Christianity is true that science goes out the window. That is absurd. Science does not simply go bust if you accept God and creation. In fact, it makes a cohesive worldview.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So back them up with something that works.

Science.

of course, if you could do that, you'd have done so already.

Which I have.

The scientific method, for starters.

The scientific method would not exist if not for my worldview.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science.

Which I have.

So where's the intelligent creator?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By assuming that what we see today will be the same tomorrow and in the future. We assume that gravity will still behave the way it behave today and in the future. We assume that our assumptions can be tested and verified. We assume that life had a beginning. Many, many assumptions are made every day that can not be tested and verified.

Yes, they can. We have substantial empirical evidence that gravity will operate tomorrow as it has done for the thousands of years humans have been keeping record, and for the millions and billions of years we can analyse from remnants of the past. This is not an assumption, this is an extremely well-evidence scientific theory.
As for the origins of life, that's not an assumption either, as we also have substantial empirical evidence to support the proposition that life had a beginning - first from the plethora of geological evidence that there was a time without life, and second from all the evidences that support evolution.

As for the far distant future where even the most undetectable and incrimental change to physical constants would make itself apparent, science is more than capable of acknowledging that. Astronomers often debate and experiment whether or not the cosmological constants are changing, if they could even change, and what that would mean. It is not an assumption, it is a theory like any other: based on hard, empirical data and entirely open to falsification.

Methodological assumptions The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]

• 'Uniformity of law across time and space: Natural laws are constant across space and time.[18]

• Uniformity of process across time and space: If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation.[17]

Source:

You'd be well served to use sources other than Wikipedia. Nonetheless, in the same article, and from the same source no less:

"Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary? (1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, methodological and substantive uniformitarianism. He dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate. He rejected the second as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary."

Gould himself rejected uniformitarianism.

"The current consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants. In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions. This is also known as the principle of geological actualism, which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology."

In other words, two pragmatic assumptions prevail: first, that geological processes behave largely like they do today, and second, that extraordinary catastrophic events punctuate long periods of relative banality. These are easily testable, simply by observing the geological column, ice core samples, magnetic reservoir strips, etc. You also should be careful not to conflate geological uniformitarianism with cosmological uniformitarianism (geological uniformitarianism is the idea that there are long, gradual geological changes that operate much now as they did back then, punctuated with catastrophic events that induced rapid, but short lived, geological changes; it is the successor to geological catastrophism).

Metaphysics do. Forensic science is a good example in fact. Forensic scientists work with metaphysical assumption in doing their work consistently.

Source:

1. Introduction
The purpose of this article is to suggest research directions in
which the forensic identification sciences might proceed in order
to place their work on firmer scientific ground. The larger scientific
world is taking notice and insisting upon real science in forensic
identification (e.g. [1]).
First, however, we should remind ourselves of the core
assumptions that underlie conventional forensic identification,
and realize that they are based more on faith than on empirical
evidence, so that we can appreciate the need for improved research
and theory. These shortcomings are shared by all of the forensic
‘‘individualization’’ sciences, certainly including forensic odontology.

I asked for specifics. Can you explain to me, in as much detail as possible, how uniformitarianism (as you've now changed your claim to) is present in the forensic sciences, and how they could not be performed without this alleged presumption.

I never claimed it was.

I'm fine.

Evidently not. Your initial definition of 'uniform' was from here (post #140), and, surprised at this definition, I detailed it to you to make sure you understood what you were claiming (#141), and you agreed (#142). Now, however, instead of a broad uniform distribution of stellar material, you're changing your definition to geological/cosmological uniformitarianism - very different from your initial definition. Still, whatever floats your boat.

So I'm slinging mud by my statement? how about these:

Oh, and your claim that we can't have science without the supernatural is patently ludicrous. You might as well be claiming that we can't have pancakes without cows.

I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

You maybe simply unable to grasp the concept.

And that is slinging mud.

​

I really can't be bothered to go into your personal issues with other posters. As I said, I simply want a civil exchange of ideas. Can we have that, please?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Actually, I justified my worldview:

The predictions came before the fact.

Before mankind existed.

No they did not, to begin with the bible was not written before mankind existed so thats patently false.

The bible was written after the fact, none of the three things you mentioned were predicted in it merely 'explained'.

So Darwin made observations about what was already there and applied his theory to that fact. The fact came before the theory.

You know that science does this all the time, right?

Yes, you take the observed facts you have available and produce a theory. Then in order to see if your theory holds water you make predictions based of that theory and see if they come true.

For example, the fossil record was very poor back then. A prediction was we'd find a nested hierarchy in them rather then random distribution that you might expect if evolution had not happend. We found it.
Another was we'd find a explaination for the different number of chromosome pairs between two species we thought to be related. apes(24) and humans(23). We found it, a clear fusion of 2 chromosomes.

That is the difference, these were predictions made before we discovered the fact they were true. The facts we already had were not claimed as 'predictions' they were simply part of the data that had to explained, done so by the theory.

Likewise for christianity, We already knew the universe seemed not to change, we already knew humans were intelligent, we already knew we could live on earth. These 3 observations were then explained by appealing to an almighty father figure that made the universe that way.
But no predictions are made, in part since even if you assume its true it does not help you answer any questions other then by saying 'god did it' which still does not tell you the how, and cannot be disproven or tested.

You could. I don't think you could make a very good argument for it.

I'd just copy your really, so I do agree that it would not be very good. But that would be the point.
For instance I just assert: The fsm created the universe the way it is through natural means and every thing in it.
Then suddenly using fsm+science I now have a complete world view according to you. And all of sciences discoveries rest upon my FSM world view because without the fsm there is no uniformity.
And there you go, christianity no longer required to explain anything. You can stop claiming its depended on yours now.

Only due to the worldview I hold.

Not true.
*see sig for details*
Also fsm is responsible, not your worldview. You can only hold your worldview because of the fsm allowing you to exist.
If it wasnt for the fsm there would be no science.

Why do you all assume that if we have God and Christianity is true that science goes out the window. That is absurd. Science does not simply go bust if you accept God and creation. In fact, it makes a cohesive worldview.

You are the one that just said it was an opposing world view, so I guess I'd have to ask you to answer why that is.
Whats more is, if you do accept science then you also have to accept that you have to submit your christian world view to scruteny but instead you simply assert your christian view needs no evidence. That doesnt work.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they did not, to begin with the bible was not written before mankind existed so thats patently false.

Oh, wow -- a whole 5 days before man showed up.

The bible was written after the fact...

So was the encyclopedia.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Oh, wow -- a whole 5 days before man showed up.

So was the encyclopedia.

In both cases AV, the point was that the bible 'predicted' things we already knew. Such at that humans were intelligent. I mean even you agree the bible merely states that fact, rather then predicts it right?
(Note we are not talking about predicting messiah's etc here.)

I have never heard anyone claim the encyclopedia predicts things, it merely states known facts. (Well.. I might be stretching fact alittle bit here.)

 

[Nostromo]

Such as?

...
Hinduism and Libertarianism are two. I'm not sure I can think of an example of one which isn't consistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, they can. We have substantial empirical evidence that gravity will operate tomorrow as it has done for the thousands of years humans have been keeping record, and for the millions and billions of years we can analyse from remnants of the past. This is not an assumption, this is an extremely well-evidence scientific theory.

Source:

That brings us to our current understanding. Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear.

Source:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This page contains basic information and FAQs about the force we call gravity. Gravity plays an important role in our universe. Scientists still have a tough time understanding what this force is. This remains one of the greatest challenges of 21st Century science.[/FONT]

Seems like you are wrong.

As for the origins of life, that's not an assumption either, as we also have substantial empirical evidence to support the proposition that life had a beginning - first from the plethora of geological evidence that there was a time without life, and second from all the evidences that support evolution.

Yes. That is not what I meant. I meant the cause of life on earth.

You'd be well served to use sources other than Wikipedia. Nonetheless, in the same article, and from the same source no less:

"Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary? (1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, methodological and substantive uniformitarianism. He dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate. He rejected the second as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary."

Gould himself rejected uniformitarianism.

I read it.


"The current consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants. In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions. This is also known as the principle of geological actualism, which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology."

In other words, two pragmatic assumptions prevail: first, that geological processes behave largely like they do today, and second, that extraordinary catastrophic events punctuate long periods of relative banality. These are easily testable, simply by observing the geological column, ice core samples, magnetic reservoir strips, etc. You also should be careful not to conflate geological uniformitarianism with cosmological uniformitarianism (geological uniformitarianism is the idea that there are long, gradual geological changes that operate much now as they did back then, punctuated with catastrophic events that induced rapid, but short lived, geological changes; it is the successor to geological catastrophism).

What is your point?

I asked for specifics. Can you explain to me, in as much detail as possible, how uniformitarianism (as you've now changed your claim to) is present in the forensic sciences, and how they could not be performed without this alleged presumption.

You did, I didn't. I said metaphysics was.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived Metaphysics do. Forensic science is a good example in fact. Forensic scientists work with metaphysical assumption in doing their work consistently.

Evidently not. Your initial definition of 'uniform' was from here (post #140), and, surprised at this definition, I detailed it to you to make sure you understood what you were claiming (#141), and you agreed (#142). Now, however, instead of a broad uniform distribution of stellar material, you're changing your definition to geological/cosmological uniformitarianism - very different from your initial definition. Still, whatever floats your boat.

No, I am not, and I don't even know why you think that.

I really can't be bothered to go into your personal issues with other posters. As I said, I simply want a civil exchange of ideas. Can we have that, please?

Those were your statement. Your quotes.:o