Creationism will only destroy science

[rmwilliamsll]

Natural selection is an attepted debunk of the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea. Darwinism is philosophical/metaphysics naturalism from top to bottom, there is no discernable difference.



On the Origin of Species is philosophy with anecdotal evidence thrown in for good measure. It gave nothing in the way of a cohesive scientific model except for how we should draw up all the charts. Now studying God may well be out of reach for natural science but an event like special creation is well within scientific inquiry.



Actually I did mean based on rather then combined with and naturalistic assumptions are the philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of natural selection.

what bothers me about these postings is that each time we ask for specifics about exactly what are these metaphysical assumptions that drive Darwinianism we get these nebulous unable to refute things like NS is metaphysical from top to bottom.

The problem is that there is a kernel of truth in the argument but we are never going to be able to understand it when the objective of the posting is not to inform but to play word games to impress and confirm True Believers in their ideas.

There is a good discussion in all of this, what was the effect on Darwin of his daughter's death, his thoughts on theodicy and his studies of the parasitism of caterpillars by wasps. But we can never seem to get beyond this nonsense of NS is philosophy not science.

just for the record to rebuttal this nonsense.
natural selection is a scientific principle, yes one of its objectives was to present a methodologically naturalistic principle to act as an alternative to design. Darwin was well read in Paley, in fact, his copy with marginalia exists and is used as a primary piece of evidence, along with his notebooks about what drove him philosophically to propose NS. But being driven by these deep human questions is not the same as saying NS is philosophic and again i challenge this poster to put up the details, to show his encounter with the original data and how these pieces are specifically philosophic.

but this is perhaps the 4th time i've done so. I know gluadys has done the same thing, but rather than stick with one topic and try to learn from a deeper analysis of it, we continue to get these big, hit and run, NS is philosophy type of postings.

and it is a shame, the topic deserves better.

....

 

[gluadys]

Natural selection is an attepted debunk of the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea. Darwinism is philosophical/metaphysics naturalism from top to bottom, there is no discernable difference.

I am not looking for a definition of natural selection just now, only a definition of Darwinism.

Would you be comfortable with a slight rewording of your definition as follows:

Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms. Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on (combined with?) the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.

Actually I did mean based on rather then combined with and naturalistic assumptions are the philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of natural selection.

Ok. We drop the “combined with” option. Are you ok with adding the clarification that the “naturalism” being referred to is the philosophy of naturalism, not just a search for natural processes?

IOW

Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms. Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.​

(Your original wording was “based on naturalistic assumptions”.)

Do you think it would be important to add in a reference to natural selection or do you think “common ancestor model” covers that adequately?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok. We drop the “combined with” option. Are you ok with adding the clarification that the “naturalism” being referred to is the philosophy of naturalism, not just a search for natural processes?

IOW

Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms. Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.​

(Your original wording was “based on naturalistic assumptions”.)

Do you think it would be important to add in a reference to natural selection or do you think “common ancestor model” covers that adequately?

The common ancestor model and exclusivly naturalistic processes would characterize Darwinism. This sound about right, ' Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.'

Now it would be impossible to talk about Darwinism and not discuss Natrual Selection but Darwin latter wished he had called it natural preservation. One of the reasons I would prefer that latter expression is that it helps to emphasis the energetic costs of adaptation.

By the way, passing Darwinism off as empirical science is absurd and it is shame that apologists for TOE cannot discern the difference between substantive and empircal reasoning in natural science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The common ancestor model and exclusivly naturalistic processes would characterize Darwinism. This sound about right, ' Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.'

Exclusively naturalistic processes characterize all science. Why pick on Darwin?

Now it would be impossible to talk about Darwinism and not discuss Natrual Selection but Darwin latter wished he had called it natural preservation. One of the reasons I would prefer that latter expression is that it helps to emphasis the energetic costs of adaptation.

1: Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection. Hard to discuss one without the other.

2: Are we really going to discuss name changes Darwin allegedly wanted to make? Are we talking about anything different with the change of a word?

By the way, passing Darwinism off as empirical science is absurd and it is shame that apologists for TOE cannot discern the difference between substantive and empircal reasoning in natural science.

Bold assertion...zero substance.

 

[shernren]

Question for you Mark: is a methodological assumption of naturalism in science acceptable to you? Namely, the assumption (for the sake of investigation) that God has not interfered with the results, while at the same time knowing full well that He could have.

 

[gluadys]

This sound about right, ' Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.'

Thanks. That is the sort of thing I was looking for.

I would personally disagree that the common ancestor model is based on any assumptions at all, but that would get us into a debate.

For now, I will enter this definition into the collection I am compiling.

 

[mark kennedy]

Exclusively naturalistic processes characterize all science. Why pick on Darwin?

That's not true, in fact theology is a science. Now there has been a distinction made betweem theology and natural science but they have common ground.

1: Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection. Hard to discuss one without the other.

Natural selection and Origin of Species were arguments against the concept of the universe and life were a result of an idea, its as simple as that. Evolution barely appears in Darwin's famous attack on Biblical theism but special creation is specificlly mentioned at the heart of the emphsis.

2: Are we really going to discuss name changes Darwin allegedly wanted to make? Are we talking about anything different with the change of a word?

I mentioned the fact that Darwin would have prefered 'natural preservation' because it was more consistant with the concept he was introducing. The reason, as I said before, I would prefer 'preservation' is because natural selection is just an analogy drawn from artificial selection. The 'preservation' of favored races is due to a balance between the energetic costs and advantages of an adaptation.

You guys seem to think I'm opposed to Darwinism but I actually rely on it a great deal for my version of creationism. It is the antithesitic elements of TOE and natural selection that I find repulsive and inappropriate as a philosophy of evolutionary biology.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks. That is the sort of thing I was looking for.

t would personally disagree that the common ancestor model is based on any assumptions at all, but that would get us into a debate.

For now, I will enter this definition into the collection I am compiling.

It is obviously an assumption since Darwin drew up his little chart without tracking anything back to the single common ancestor, much less all living creatures. What is more, inductive reasoning leads to this kind of assumption since it makes a judgment of the whole set based on the observations of a much smaller subset.

Now I have a question for you, what is your definition of creationism? The term is used with respect to both the historical context TOE was developed in and the counter cultural movement of today. For me, creationism is the belief that God's work 'In the begining' is 'clearly seen in the things that are made'. I can elaborate on my definition of creationism both historically and as a modern alternative to the single common ancestor model but I want to know how you define it.

By the way, if you are collecting definitions of darwinism I would be interested in what you come up with when you are finished.

 

[mark kennedy]

Question for you Mark: is a methodological assumption of naturalism in science acceptable to you?

Yes, providing that it respects the limits beyond which a scientific inquiry may investigate the natural world. Theologians use a term for the independance of God that they call the aseity of God. In describing this the call God, altogether other. In short what this means is that God is seperate from the created world but God's handiwork in creation is discernable on a naturalistic level.

To put this in perspective the statement, 'I love my Mom', is not something that a scientist can test using methodological naturalism. Any attempt to answer ultimate questions are outside the various disciplines of natural science and rightfully considered psuedo science.

Now here is the thing, there are things that natural science and theology have in common. This common ground is the subject of creationism particularly with regards to the origin of life and the limits beyond which living systems cannot evolve into an altogether different 'kind'.

Namely, the assumption (for the sake of investigation) that God has not interfered with the results, while at the same time knowing full well that He could have.

It is not the purpose of science to exclude any referance to God, that is neither natural nor scientific. The purpose of science is to examine the natural processes and provide a working model by which we understand the natural world. Rejecting the inferance that God did act in time and space to produce life handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems and the limits of change.

 

[Remus]

It is not the purpose of science to exclude any referance to God, that is neither natural nor scientific. The purpose of science is to examine the natural processes and provide a working model by which we understand the natural world. Rejecting the inferance that God did act in time and space to produce life handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems and the limits of change.

Well said Mark.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is not the purpose of science to exclude any referance to God, that is neither natural nor scientific. The purpose of science is to examine the natural processes and provide a working model by which we understand the natural world. Rejecting the inferance that God did act in time and space to produce life handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems and the limits of change.

science does not reject the supernatural, it is silent on the issues. having found historically that these issues are not accessible via the tools of the various sciences, nor in general are they(supernatural things) public knowledge rather they appear to be private knowledge accessible via revelatory means. science simply agreed not to talk about them. it didnt reject these things any more then it accepted them, it shrunk the domain of discourse so that the supernatural is no longer in it. human beings speaking as metaphysicans began to make the assertation that since science didnt talk about these things then they were either not real or not important. this has nothing to do with science as an epistemology, but rather the fact that all scientists have a world view and it is not always clear from which realm they are speaking.

see A. Kuyper's two science model and its modern defenders before you try to reinvent the wheel, you are expressing things people have been working on unsuccessfully for over a hundred years.

...

 

[mark kennedy]

science does not reject the supernatural, it is silent on the issues. having found historically that these issues are not accessible via the tools of the various sciences, nor in general are they(supernatural things) public knowledge rather they appear to be private knowledge accessible via revelatory means. science simply agreed not to talk about them. it didnt reject these things any more then it accepted them, it shrunk the domain of discourse so that the supernatural is no longer in it. human beings speaking as metaphysicans began to make the assertation that since science didnt talk about these things then they were either not real or not important. this has nothing to do with science as an epistemology, but rather the fact that all scientists have a world view and it is not always clear from which realm they are speaking.

see A. Kuyper's two science model and its modern defenders before you try to reinvent the wheel, you are expressing things people have been working on unsuccessfully for over a hundred years.

...

What you don't seem to appreciate is that natural science being subordinate to theology had been the prevailing view for at least a thousand year previously. Special creation is treated as if it were completly outside of the realm of natural science and this is, as I have said repeatedly, neither natural nor scientific. The whole point is to follow the evidence we have and come to an informed opinion about our origins, if it leads to a conclusion that God acted in time and space to create life then so be it.

Metaphysics is about transending principles that permeate reality and there is common ground between natural science and religious systems. It is intrusions of natural science into the realm of theology that caused creationism and ID to be such an important issue. When you get into epistomology you get into how we know anything with real certainty and 'knowledge', it should be noted, is the root meaning of science. In modern science we must distinguish between theoretical and practical knowledge and it is theoretical knowledge that is the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

The empirical evidence is explicit of the limits beyond which living systems cannot change into an altogether different 'kind'. You actually have two choices whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you want to admitt it or not. The choice is between Medelian genetics or Darwinian naturalism because they cannot both be true at the same time. There are either limits beyond which living systems can evolve into altogether different 'kinds' or there are not, you can't have it both ways.

Darwinism is a dialectic that redifined his single common ancestor model with Medelian genetics. They are mutually exclusive and we are either going to have to toss darwinism or genetics before this conflict is finally and definitivly resolved. The prevailing view will change and the further Darwinism swings it to the naturalistic extremes the further it will swing in the other direction. It's just a question of time and now would be the time to turn the no man's land back into common ground and balance this issue before it goes to the other extreme.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well said Mark.

Thanks Remus, I allways thought it was common sense but opinions vary.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The empirical evidence is explicit of the limits beyond which living systems cannot change into an altogether different 'kind'.

define kind.
present scientific evidence of this barrier between the kinds.

Darwinism is a dialectic that redifined his single common ancestor model with Medelian genetics.

i believe you mean that the modern (neodarwinian) synthesis is Darwin + genetics, however your argument is not clear to me, beyond this factual error.

 

[mark kennedy]

define kind.
present scientific evidence of this barrier between the kinds.

The definition of 'kind' is identical to the taxonomic definition for class and the scientific definition for the barriors are the laws of inheritance in Mendelian genetics.

i believe you mean that the modern (neodarwinian) synthesis is Darwin + genetics, however your argument is not clear to me, beyond this factual error.

You are welcome, even entitled, to your argument from incredulity but you have yet to answer the central question. Are there limits beyond which living systems may change from one kind (defined as class) into an altogether different kind? Obviously I will be insisting on the genetic basis for your response.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are welcome, even entitled, to your argument from incredulity but you have yet to answer the central question. Are there limits beyond which living systems may change from one kind (defined as class) into an altogether different kind? Obviously I will be insisting on the genetic basis for your response.

There are imaginable barriers between kinds, my favorite is one i've posted here several times, is a different genetic code for each kind.

What is interesting about the question- can we see a kind barrier? and your short answer-" laws of inheritance in Mendelian genetics."
what are the Mendelian genetics rules?
there is a reasonable intro at:
http://onlinetc.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/Core81/chap8.html
i don't think it is any more complex then high school f1, f2 type of exercises. How does this form a kind barrier?
next- what are your kinds? class. actually it is the first time i've seen this answer from a YECist. so what is class in systematic classification?
see:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Class-(biology)
# Class
# Order
# Family
# Genus
# Species
so what are some examples of classes?
Insecta, Mammalia,

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_orders
1.1.1 Class Acanthodii - extinct
1.1.2 Class Actinistia (coelacanths)
1.1.3 Class Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish)
1.1.4 Class Amphibia (amphibians)
1.1.5 Class Ascidiacea (ascideans and sessile tunicates)
1.1.6 Class Aves (birds)
1.1.7 Class Chondrichthyes (cartilagenous fish)
1.1.8 Class Dipnoi (lungfish)
1.1.9 Class Larvacea
1.1.10 Class Mammalia (mammals)
1.1.11 Class Petromyzontida (lampreys)
1.1.12 Class Placodermi - extinct
1.1.13 Class Reptilia (reptiles)
1.1.14 Class Thaliacea (pelagic tunicates)
1.1.15 Class Insecta (insects)

personally, i think this too large a classification for most YECists. but it's your dime.

so essentially your argument is that there is an absolute barrier between say mammals and birds. and that this barrier is expressed in the basic genetic laws discovered by Mendel.

There is no mechanism differences in any living creature but a few genetic code variations in archaebacteria. The only thing different between a mammal and a bird is the specific genes. The DNA is the same, evidence is the interesting fact that we have thousands of virus genes encoded into our genome. There appears to be no barrier to integration from any number of outside of mammalia order viruses.
see:
http://www.medicalglossary.org/rna_viruses_retroviridae_definitions.html

this data alone, this the enormous amount of work being done shows me convincingly that there is simply no barrier to the integration of avian genes or dna into the human genome via virus infection.

now this is certainly at a level lower than your gene analysis, but until i know the specifics of what you believe Mendalian genetics erects as a barrier i have to stick with the things i know best.

simply, human beings are able to incorporate avian dna and perhaps genes into our genome, naturally, because of the similiar of avian and human ERV's. i didn't find any evidence of an avian genes in human genome this way but i am looking. (see studied vectors derived from the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), avian sarcoma-leukosis virus (ASLV), and murine leukemia virus (MLV).)

nice intro
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2004/nhgri-08.htm
this is the kind of data i am looking for
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/21/6497
or http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2004/volume25/number5/1495.pdf
looking for gene fragments carried into the human genome by avian retroviral infections. since we have lived in contact with and regularly get very sick from avian flu this is a likely source of information on the compatibility of avian and human dna, contra to the original proposal that there exists some type of absolute barrier between classes.

i think that sufficiently proves my contention until i learn more about exactly what it is about Mendelian genetics that you think a barrier between classes.
....

 

[shernren]

It is not the purpose of science to exclude any referance to God, that is neither natural nor scientific. The purpose of science is to examine the natural processes and provide a working model by which we understand the natural world. Rejecting the inferance that God did act in time and space to produce life handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems and the limits of change.

I would take issue with this particular paragraph. "Rejecting the inference that God did act in time and space to produce life" - inference from what? I believe rather that accepting that assumption handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems. Now I am trying very very hard to show the distinction between something scientific and something true. Iron sinking in water is scientific, but it wasn't true for Elisha. The point I am trying to make is that no matter how true the creationist assertions are (God made a young earth that looks old, God did IDing that looks peculiarly like something you could've gotten through natural selection), they aren't really scientific and therefore not very amenable to scientific investigation, no matter whether they are actually true or not. Would you agree with this statement, or do you disagree and why?

 

[Smidlee]

I would take issue with this particular paragraph. "Rejecting the inference that God did act in time and space to produce life" - inference from what? I believe rather that accepting that assumption handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems. Now I am trying very very hard to show the distinction between something scientific and something true. Iron sinking in water is scientific, but it wasn't true for Elisha. The point I am trying to make is that no matter how true the creationist assertions are (God made a young earth that looks old, God did IDing that looks peculiarly like something you could've gotten through natural selection), they aren't really scientific and therefore not very amenable to scientific investigation, no matter whether they are actually true or not. Would you agree with this statement, or do you disagree and why?

If you truely believe that accepting assumptions is a handicap then evolution isn't scientific either. origins deals with theology and there is no escape from that. Either man is a separate created being that was created by God or he is a accident by evolution (mutations are errors), both deals with religious beliefs which deals who we are and how we got here. While creationist admit we accpet something by faith ,evolutionist are more dishonest by trying to claim their assumptions are scientific fact.
The is strong scientific evidence of a supernatural miracle happened in the past called Life. So Evolutionists still have to deal with the chicken or the egg paradoxes found in nature which requires a miracle.(this is why evolutionist want to separate their theory for their genesis) One of the big hang up with evolutionists is Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Either man is a glorified ape (the so called common ancestor between man and ape is still a stupid ape.) or he is created by God separate from the animals and became a living soul. Both positions is a matter of faith.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If you truely believe that accepting assumptions is a handicap then evolution isn't scientific either. origins deals with theology and there is no escape from that. Either man is a separate created being that was created by God or he is a accident by evolution (mutations are errors), both deals with religious beliefs which deals who we are and how we got here. While creationist admit we accpet something by faith ,evolutionist are more dishonest by trying to claim their assumptions are scientific fact.
The is strong scientific evidence of a supernatural miracle happened in the past called Life. So Evolutionists still have to deal with the chicken or the egg paradoxes found in nature which requires a miracle.(this is why evolutionist want to separate their theory for their genesis) One of the big hang up with evolutionists is Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Either man is a glorified ape (the so called common ancestor between man and ape is still a stupid ape.) or he is created by God separate from the animals and became a living soul. Both positions is a matter of faith.

origins deals with theology and there is no escape from that.
----no, there are theological ramifications of origins, but origins themselves need not have any reference to a god of any type. evidence is modern science which has no reference to the supernatural, it is you who because you desire origins to be a narrative concerning God that try to insert God into the narrative. the metaphysics drawn out of origins is itself not science.

Either man is a separate created being that was created by God or he is a accident by evolution (mutations are errors), both deals with religious beliefs which deals who we are and how we got here.
----again the constant polarization of the debate. there are lots of positions that posit neither a all powerful God nor an accidental origin. In fact, modern biological science doesn't propose chance as fundamental as you describe it. For mutations are the origin of change in the system but the filter is NS which is not random. but again evolution is not abiogenesis. you are using the term theological up until this point and switch to religious. religious is not theological. Theological is a part type of religious, a subset. If you define religious as you did here, who we are and how we got here, then the statement that evolution is religious is a tautology and adds nothing to the conversation but confusion.

While creationist admit we accpet something by faith ,evolutionist are more dishonest by trying to claim their assumptions are scientific fact.
----i do not understand why the YECist community simply seems unable to distinguish a conclusion from an assumption. That life evolves is a conclusion, not an assumption. Plus there is great difficulty in the YECist camp in understanding the difference between a fact and a theory, plus as this posting shows an inability to distinguish values which live in the metaphysical sphere from either scientific fact or theory.

The is strong scientific evidence of a supernatural miracle
----there is never any scientific evidence for a supernatural miracle, beside is there a natural miracle? science always talks about reproducibility, never about the unique, never about the supernatural, never about miracles. It knows nothing of the field and is completely silent about the subject. but go ahead and present your strong scientific evidence for a supernatural miracle. it would make an interesting discussion.

Either man is a glorified ape (the so called common ancestor between man and ape is still a stupid ape.) or he is created by God separate from the animals and became a living soul.
----again the radical polarization where the entire history of mankind's thought on the subject are pushed into two extremes. Glorified is not a scientific term, it is a loaded theological term, in fact a particular term from Christianity. How do you get away with using it as a scientific label? for its shock value, or to steer the conversation? it is not a scientific term at all.

mankind is continuous with the primates. the GLO pseudogene, the union of the chimp 2p+2q chromosome alone are sufficient evidence to make this a good hypothesis. Does this eliminate the Biblical understanding that God created mankind? of course not, science has no access to the soul, it has no way to define it, the soul lives between the natural world and the spiritual world. Science deliberately limits itself to the natural world. Its tools do not allow access to, nor does its epistemology seem to work at all in the spiritual realm.

your problem, other than a lot of philosophic and metaphysical confusion is that you can't seem to separate the realms of science and theology long enough to see that they are different things that have different rules and talk about different subjects. Conflating the two does injustice to both and steers your thinking into radcial polarization and metaphysical confusion.


.....

 

[mark kennedy]

I would take issue with this particular paragraph. "Rejecting the inference that God did act in time and space to produce life" - inference from what?

It depends on who you talk to, in ID it's irreducable complexity, for the creationist its the historical basis of the Gospel. That there are indeed limits beyond which living systems may not trasform into an alltogether different kind. I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at the natural world and conclude that God acted in time and space to create life. What I like about ID is that it points to the most important aspect of evolutionary biology, the energetic cost of adaptation. I also think that apologists for TOE are woefully uninformed as to the real tenants of evolution and its philsophical underpinnings.

I believe rather that accepting that assumption handicaps a scientific inquiry into the origins of living systems. Now I am trying very very hard to show the distinction between something scientific and something true. Iron sinking in water is scientific, but it wasn't true for Elisha. The point I am trying to make is that no matter how true the creationist assertions are (God made a young earth that looks old, God did IDing that looks peculiarly like something you could've gotten through natural selection), they aren't really scientific and therefore not very amenable to scientific investigation, no matter whether they are actually true or not. Would you agree with this statement, or do you disagree and why?

The question would be did iron float or not, in apologetics we call this the historicity of an event. There are four major events that are foundational to the promise of the Gospel, Creation, the Fall, the Flood and Bable. Biology and Geology are the only two disciplines in that are allowed to pontificate about primordial history. The dogma of evolution is DNA not single common ancestory and the bait and switch doesn't work on me anymore.