Science Proves Creation

[Speedwell]

As Larry Krauss once said- if your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine- it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory.

The multiverse was always going to be the last resort as an alternative to an intelligent creator, after static/ eternal/ steady state, big crunch models all became defunct- based on observable evidence. The multiverse avoids any possibility of this inconvenience.



It's a good point, a mechanism with no preferred outcome, would be perfectly 'happy' with a world full of bacteria- or nothing at all. But we ended up with a means by which the universe can ponder it's own existence.. I would agree, this suggests goals that extend a little further!

Multiverse theory doesn't say anything about whether there is an intelligent creator one way or the other. It doesn't even address the issue.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Multiverse theory doesn't say anything about whether there is an intelligent creator one way or the other. It doesn't even address the issue.

Of course not, because it is an alternative by design- that is perceived to make God entirely 'redundant' in Hawking's own words.

Likewise Hoyle rejected the Big Bang till his dying day as 'religious-pseudoscience'
His alternative theory: 'Steady State' - didn't mention God either, did it?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course not, because it is an alternative by design- that is perceived to make God entirely 'redundant' in Hawking's own words.

You rule out multiverse by design? On what evidence?

Likewise Hoyle rejected the Big Bang till his dying day as 'religious-pseudoscience'
His alternative theory: 'Steady State' - didn't mention God either, did it?

Scientific theories generally don't. The existence of God is a separate question from those science investigates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You rule out multiverse by design? On what evidence?

no- I don't rule it out, I have no need to.

As I don't have to rule out chance, to conclude that a gambler probably cheated (intelligence)- if he got 5 royal flushes in a row.

But if I must conclude chance- I must rule out intelligence, right?

Scientific theories generally don't. The existence of God is a separate question from those science investigates.

so there's the ruling out of intelligence
And exactly why Hoyle dismissed the Big Bang out of hand- - as it resembled arguments for a creator- "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

The irony being- that forbidding the involvement of intelligence, means that everything now has to be influenced by it, to avoid and work around it.

why not remove the restrictions and follow the evidence where it leads? no matter the implications for intelligence?

 

[Speedwell]

no- I don't rule it out, I have no need to.

As I don't have to rule out chance, to conclude that a gambler probably cheated (intelligence)- if he got 5 royal flushes in a row.

But if I must conclude chance- I must rule out intelligence, right?

Wrong. What you call "chance" is a feature of many designed processes.

why not remove the restrictions and follow the evidence where it leads? no matter the implications for intelligence?

If the evidence led to intelligence, that's where science would go.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wrong. What you call "chance" is a feature of many designed processes.

a design feature yes, not a comprehensive design mechanism.
the system must be designed to facilitate that random feature- within specified limits

randomization is used to make selections within pre-determined viable ranges

that's why different ads pop up on this forum, or enemies in a video game don't always appear at the same time and place, or two pups in a litter have slightly different fur patterns -Variation within viable limits it's a perfectly logical and even necessary design feature

But you cannot use random error to create the program, or the animal itself- go beyond these pre-defined limits, and you just break the software, or the over-bred animal.

If the evidence led to intelligence, that's where science would go.

and it does

 

[Speedwell]

a design feature yes, not a comprehensive design mechanism.
the system must be designed to facilitate that random feature- within specified limits

randomization is used to make selections within pre-determined viable ranges

And it permits evolution to take place if the central tendency of the random distribution of variation shifts with the evolving trait. In evolution, the limits of variation aren't fixed.

But you cannot use random error to create the program, or the animal itself- go beyond these pre-defined limits, and you just break the software, or the over-bred animal.

Actually, the over-bred animal is confirmation of the theory. Natural selection depletes the information content of the gene pool; forced selection depletes it faster than it can be replenished by natural means, and orderly change comes to a stop. Mathematically what happens is the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation shrinks to the point where further useful variations are no longer produced.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And it permits evolution to take place if the central tendency of the random distribution of variation shifts with the evolving trait. In evolution, the limits of variation aren't fixed.

Actually, the over-bred animal is confirmation of the theory. Natural selection depletes the information content of the gene pool; forced selection depletes it faster than it can be replenished by natural means, and orderly change comes to a stop. Mathematically what happens is the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation shrinks to the point where further useful variations are no longer produced.

I see what you are saying, and I take your point, though my point was about the viability of the genetic shift- the point at which the useful range of variation reaches it's limit for that feature of that design- regardless of how that change is achieved/maintained- where the dial is turned to 11 and going further breaks something

But you touch on a different paradox- that large successful gene pools tend to be stable- because they are.. large and successful. Small advantages may be more likely to appear somewhere as you say, but are more likely drowned in the larger genetic pool. And so horseshoe crabs can cease to evolve for 100's of millions of years- as the theory goes

So change requires a relatively small, stressed & vulnerable population for any single advantageous mutation to be 'seized upon'- to make a large enough proportional impact- basically the 'bottleneck' rationale for punctuated equilibrium v gradualism yes? But as you point out; you now have a small vulnerable population- with less ability to produce those required new useful variations, which is more susceptible to complete extinction- which is already the result for the vast majority of genetic lines anyway.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The multiverse was always going to be the last resort as an alternative to an intelligent creator, after static/ eternal/ steady state, big crunch models all became defunct- based on observable evidence. The multiverse avoids any possibility of this inconvenience.

Multiverses are predictions of current theories, given plausible assumptions. They have no particular relevance to intelligent creators - if you can imagine that an intelligent creator made the universe, why not a multiverse too?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... so horseshoe crabs can cease to evolve for 100's of millions of years- as the theory goes

No, they didn't cease to evolve; they diversified into a whole taxonomic order - a huge number of different species, all of which continued to evolve until most went extinct. For many, the basic body shape remained largely unchanged very long periods, but they continued to evolve, as is the case for many other families, e.g. sharks, coelocanths, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Multiverses are predictions of current theories, given plausible assumptions. They have no particular relevance to intelligent creators - if you can imagine that an intelligent creator made the universe, why not a multiverse too?

Static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- were theoretical/ mathematical predictions also

They just didn't hold up to real-world observation

Multiverses put themselves conveniently beyond this inconvenience- I can imagine them- I agree with Larry Krauss on this though 'If your theory involves an invisible probability machine- it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

Beyond that you have the problem of a mechanism capable of creating anything and everything-( including 8 billion creative minds apparently) NOT creating anything we could call 'God'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- were theoretical/ mathematical predictions also...

Which theories were they predictions of?

Multiverses put themselves conveniently beyond this inconvenience- I can imagine them- I agree with Larry Krauss on this though 'If your theory involves an invisible probability machine- it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

The theories don't require multiverses; as I said, they're predictions of those theories, given plausible assumptions. Pretty much all scientific theories make some untestable predictions, but they obviously don't rely on them.

Beyond that you have the problem of a mechanism capable of creating anything and everything-( including 8 billion creative minds apparently) NOT creating anything we could call 'God'

Not really. They can only create what is possible within the rules of the underlying theory - it's not 'anything goes'. In particular, God is clearly not possible within any coherent physical theory, by definition.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which theories were they predictions of?

each stemmed from the failures of the previous, big crunch was based on the predictions of inflationary theory at the time, which allowed for a possible collapse- more or less debunked by supernova measurements.

But they were all explicitly presented as ways to account for the universe without a creator- the only idea remaining was one inherently beyond the testing and observation which had led to the demise of all the others.

God is clearly not possible within any coherent physical theory, by definition.

what definition is that?

 

[Speedwell]

each stemmed from the failures of the previous, big crunch was based on the predictions of inflationary theory at the time, which allowed for a possible collapse- more or less debunked by supernova measurements.

But they were all explicitly presented as ways to account for the universe without a creator- the only idea remaining was one inherently beyond the testing and observation which had led to the demise of all the others.

I fail to see how any of them eliminates the possibility of a creator. As to your claim that they were specifically developed to do that, I would have to see statements from the originating scientists to that effect.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I fail to see how any of them eliminates the possibility of a creator. As to your claim that they were specifically developed to do that, I would have to see statements from the originating scientists to that effect.

Well we already did that for steady state (Hoyle) who called the Big Bang 'religious pseudoscience', an argument for a creator.- could not be described in scientific terms etc.

Steady state, like other static/eternal models eliminated a creator- because they explicitly eliminated the very idea of creation/ a beginning (no creation = no creator)

Eddington called the very idea of a beginning 'repugnant' (hardly a scientific term!) another prominent scientist said that steady state 'removed the problem' -

Hawking said many times that the Big Crunch made God 'redundant'- by likewise removing the problem of a unique creation event-(rather it provided a sort of cyclical self-rejuvenation)- no creator required
He was a little less emphatic atheist- more apt to 'allow the possibility' but still as I said- these theories all explicitly attempted to provide a direct alternative to an intelligent creator.

I'd say that Georges Lemaitre stands in clear contrast here- he went out of his way to disassociate his theory from God, even telling the Pope to quit gloating. i.e. Ironically it was the atheist academics who focused on the theistic implications, not the theists.

 

[Speedwell]

Well we already did that for steady state (Hoyle) who called the Big Bang 'religious pseudoscience', an argument for a creator.- could not be described in scientific terms etc.

Steady state, like other static/eternal models eliminated a creator- because they explicitly eliminated the very idea of creation/ a beginning (no creation = no creator)

Eddington called the very idea of a beginning 'repugnant' (hardly a scientific term!) another prominent scientist said that steady state 'removed the problem' -

Hawking said many times that the Big Crunch made God 'redundant'- by likewise removing the problem of a unique creation event-(rather it provided a sort of cyclical self-rejuvenation)- no creator required
He was a little less emphatic atheist- more apt to 'allow the possibility' but still as I said- these theories all explicitly attempted to provide a direct alternative to an intelligent creator.

I'd say that Georges Lemaitre stands in clear contrast here- he went out of his way to disassociate his theory from God, even telling the Pope to quit gloating. i.e. Ironically it was the atheist academics who focused on the theistic implications, not the theists.

Yes but your claim was about why these theories were designed, not their implications.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes but your claim was about why these theories were designed, not their implications.

Hoyle's steady state was in direct response to what HE saw as the overt theistic implications of a creation event- it attempted to account for the appearance of a finite/youthful universe in other less implicitly theistic ways- his argument, not mine.

as above, we know Lemaitre was not basing his theory on implications, as he could hardly have done more to argue against those himself.

That's how a scientist should operate is it not? to distance his own world views from his work, instead of continually equating them?

But therein lies an inherent bias problem with a-theism. How does a person set aside a personal belief- that they do not even acknowledge as such?

 

[Speedwell]

They just didn't hold up to real-world observation

Which should put the question of alleged atheistic bias to rest.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

each stemmed from the failures of the previous, big crunch was based on the predictions of inflationary theory at the time, which allowed for a possible collapse- more or less debunked by supernova measurements.

So static, eternal, steady state were predictions of which theory or theories?

The big crunch was a prediction of General Relativity, assuming greater than critical mass density so that gravity would eventually overcome and reverse the post-inflation expansion. It had nothing to do with inflationary theory.

... they were all explicitly presented as ways to account for the universe without a creator- the only idea remaining was one inherently beyond the testing and observation which had led to the demise of all the others.

People can present scientific theories and hypotheses any way they like - it doesn't mean that the theories were developed with that intent. As I understand it, all those hypotheses were based on the evidence available at the time. If that was not the case, then they were not scientific hypotheses.

what definition is that?

That God is supernatural.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which should put the question of alleged atheistic bias to rest.

It should yes.

But sadly not, Hoyle refused to accept the observational evidence till his dying day in 2001.

And I'm also old enough that I had teachers in school who still stood with Hoyle against this 'religious pseudoscience'