Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Very many of them are. Even in the cases where they have been shown false, many of them were sound given the evidence at that time.

And perhaps more importantly, many of them are still sound within a limited range of application (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics, for instance). Not all, though. Scientists are not immune to bias and preconceptions, and can be deceived by not being careful enough in their experiments. Fortunately the culture of science is pretty good at correcting these issues given enough time, but it's not perfect.

Edit: the fact that science is pretty good at picking out such errors means that usually these things are limited to existing for reasonable periods of time only in obscure niches with few scientists active.

 

[VinceBlaze]

well if you follow scientific defintions, rather than make up things,

Make up what things? Is there something specific that you're referring to, or are you just making something up?

that is if you care about science and not premoting your own personal views

What specific personal views are you referring to?

 

[VinceBlaze]

I find theistic evolution to be the only explaination that combines my intuitive belief in God and my logical belief in observable evidence.

Many people are set in conflict against each other on one side or the other, but few seem able to reconcile theism and evolution together. I think it takes a perspective relatively free of dualism to be able to reconcile polarities that are largely seen as disparate by most.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Another line of reasoning is simply that just like we aren't surprised that we live on the Earth instead of a planet like Mars, since we can't live on Mars, it is plausible that there are many universes, perhaps an infinite number of them, all with different values of these parameters, and we observe the ones that we do observe as being tuned for life not because the parameters are tuned for life, but rather because the universe as a whole tried everything, and we just observe a universe in which we can exist.

These are interesting speculations that you offer.

My personal belief is that the eternal multiverse (composed of an infinitude of universes) is a conscious living organism without beginning and without end. Via it's conscious intelligence, it's spawned into being our solar system and populated every planet therein.

Of course, one may argue that I'm not being scientific.

 

[VinceBlaze]

If you say "big bang or creation", yes. Because that means that there was either a creative process, or a big bang. However, if you hold that the big bang may have been a creative process, this dichotomy that you have conjured up, does not exist.

Actually, I'm quite agnostic to either a big bang or creation event. At least as they may be represented in a classic sense.

So what is your problem with scientific conclusions then?

My problem is not with the conclusions themselves, but with the precise reliability of the methods used.

The conclusions, although indirect, do stem directly from them.

Direct indirectness then? Or indirect directness?

With big bang and evolution, yes, they do.

In your perspective perhaps. But many hold alternate perspectives.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Very many of them are. Even in the cases where they have been shown false, many of them were sound given the evidence at that time.

If something is presently shown to be unsound, then how/why would we still consider it to be sound in the past tense?

 

[Tomk80]

Actually, I'm quite agnostic to either a big bang or creation event. At least as they may be represented in a classic sense.

Again, why would it be either/or? Why can it not be both?

My problem is not with the conclusions themselves, but with the precise reliability of the methods used.

Sure, but you reject this reliability for the wrong reasons.

Direct indirectness then? Or indirect directness?

Something like that.

In your perspective perhaps. But many hold alternate perspectives.

Not in the scientific community. The good thing about science is that we can look at the evidence and investigate whether the logical reasoning of opposing views is sound. In the creationism/ID/evolution debate, I have yet to see a creationist or ID-ist who uses sound logical reasoning and can arrive at his conclusion without ignoring facts. I have yet to see this on the side of evolution. If you disagree, I'm afraid we really will need to look at specific cases.

 

[Tomk80]

If something is presently shown to be unsound, then how/why would we still consider it to be sound in the past tense?

Because at that time it was the best conclusion that could be reached, given the evidence they had at that time.

When you don't have the instruments to detect the effects of general relativity, arriving at newtonian mechanics is valid.

 

[belladonic-haze]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?

Of course not...the earth was considered flat about 500 years ago....the earth was the center of the universe.....yada yada yada years ago.......I mean, we grow and we discover uncover and rediscover..... No teaching is infallible....

 

[TeddyKGB]

Agreed. But they are a bit far more departed from empirical evidences in such a context.

I am not sure what that means. Theories can account for hypotheses, observations, facts, laws, or any combination thereof.

You went from 'exclusion' to 'opposition'. Bait and switch. 'Exclusion' and 'opposition' are two different animals.

Observation and examination are neither opposed to nor excluded by theorizing.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Again, why would it be either/or? Why can it not be both?

I was responding to your previous statement in the context that it was presented. We can use what terminologies that you like however.

Sure, but you reject this reliability for the wrong reasons.

And what are the right reasons to reject this reliability?

Not in the scientific community.

I do not regard the scientific community as the ultimate authority.

In the creationism/ID/evolution debate, I have yet to see a creationist or ID-ist who uses sound logical reasoning and can arrive at his conclusion without ignoring facts.

Can you provide a specific example?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Because at that time it was the best conclusion that could be reached, given the evidence they had at that time.

When you don't have the instruments to detect the effects of general relativity, arriving at newtonian mechanics is valid.

Does this mean that it was a valid conclusion when people asserted the world was flat at the time?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Of course not...the earth was considered flat about 500 years ago....the earth was the center of the universe.....yada yada yada years ago.......I mean, we grow and we discover uncover and rediscover..... No teaching is infallible....

I fully agree. Thank you for your input.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Theories can account for hypotheses, observations, facts, laws, or any combination thereof.

Theories may represent any combination of hypotheses, observations, facts or laws, but I am not certain that they necessarily account for them. Theories do not necessarily validate combinations of hypotheses, observations, facts or laws. It usually works the other way around.

Observation and examination are neither opposed to nor excluded by theorizing.

This may depend upon the quality of the theorizing, and does reflect an ideal hope among theorists.

 

[RichardT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricity

• The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

From wikipedia...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricity

• The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

From wikipedia...

there is a confusion between frames of reference for relative motion and geo- vs helio-centrism as an explanation for the motion of the solar system, not only present forces but explanation of how it arose. Basically geocentrics are misusing the frame of reference idea, the earth orbits the sun not only as a result of observable forces but it orbits the sun as a result of a reasonable and evidenced history of development. Geocentricism is completely unable to answer any of the developmental questions about how suns and planets form, let alone issues like gas giants and small rocky planets. Geocentricism completely lacks an explanatory framework to answer questions about the core of the earth or the presence of trans-carbon elements, for example. It is not simply another way to interpret the data, it is a grossly defective analytic framework for astronomy.

it is however a good analogy to YECism, as in geocentricism is to modern astronomy as YECism is to modern scientific biology.

 

[Chalnoth]

Does this mean that it was a valid conclusion when people asserted the world was flat at the time?

Scholars have known that the world was round for more than 2000 years. The later layman's belief in a flat Earth was related to religious considerations, not anything related to direct observation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Theories may represent any combination of hypotheses, observations, facts or laws, but I am not certain that they necessarily account for them. Theories do not necessarily validate combinations of hypotheses, observations, facts or laws. It usually works the other way around.

When I say "hypotheses," I am referring to those already validated via experiment. None of those things need validation from a theory, but a handful of hypotheses can be shown to be related or mutually supportive using a theory.

This may depend upon the quality of the theorizing, and does reflect an ideal hope among theorists.

Every theory is not going to be the bee's knees, but then I never said anything about particular theories. The point is, the process of theorizing neither opposes nor excludes observation and examination, and that point stands.

 

[VinceBlaze]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricity

• The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream.

From wikipedia...

Are you a geocentrist? How are you applying this statement?

 

[VinceBlaze]

The later layman's belief in a flat Earth was related to religious considerations, not anything related to direct observation.

What are you talking about? I can make a direct observation right now. If I look down at the ground, then look to the horizon, I see no bend in the earth. It just goes on forever. Obviously the earth is flat. I've directly observed it. Nothing religious about it. It's all based on direct observation. I see no bend in the earth.