The Creationist Explanaton

[AV1611VET]

Darwinians try to find peace in their cleverness. Do you think they find it?

A false peace ... yes.

Perfect peace? no.

Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

 

[Anguspure]

Given how creationism's lack of explanatory power is on full display in this thread, I'm not sure what you are gloating about.

The problem seems to be that Creationism explains everything, it has too much explanatory power, the framework is too large.
On Creationism I can legitimately consider any process that may lead to the observed phenominum, including process commonly called evolution, I can follow the evidence where ever it leads.
Clearly the field of possibilites for a Creator is endless and only limited by creative ability.

But for the scientist this frame work is far to loose and leads all sorts of problems so on Methodological Naturalism I am forced to shoe horn all of the evidence into just one theory irrespective of where the evidence might be pointing.

"Is design evident? Yes, are we allowed to aknowledge it? No, must only use natural selection"

 

[pitabread]

The problem seems to be that Creationism explains everything, it has too much explanatory power, the framework is too large.

Something that explains everything, explains nothing. Scope limitation isn't a weakness in this regard.

On Creationism I can legitimately consider any process that may lead to the observed phenominum, including process commonly called evolution, I can follow the evidence where ever it leads.

Following the evidence to where it has lead gives us 4 billion years of biological evolution.

In the context of modern creationism, however, it is generally the rejection of the following of the evidence whereby people reject biological evolution as an explanation for biodiversity, inserting their own religious beliefs in its place.

Clearly the field of possibilites for a Creator is endless and only limited by creative ability.

In the context of independently created species, the answer is again limited to , "it's the way it is because that's how the designer made it".

Now if you want to understand the implications of that, consider this excerpt from the Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution:

While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.​

https://botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

But for the scientist this frame work is far to loose and leads all sorts of problems so on Methodological Naturalism I am forced to shoe horn all of the evidence into just one theory irrespective of where the evidence might be pointing.

How does one scientifically test the supernatural? You haven't answered that yet.

Unless you have a way to scientifically test the supernatural that no one else in the history of humanity has come up with, then any complaints about the scientific method are for naught.

 

[sfs]

If evolution isn't seeking a perfect existence, then it is flawed, I believe.

Auto mechanics, the stock market and the electric light bulb are also not seeking a perfect existence. You don't believe in any of those either, I take it?

 

[sfs]

The problem seems to be that Creationism explains everything, it has too much explanatory power, the framework is too large.

No, the problem is that if the same explanation can be applied to any state of affairs, then it isn't an explanation. An explanation tells you why something is one way and not another. If when I take my car to the mechanic tomorrow and ask why it's making that grinding sound, he answers, "Because God wanted it that way", he will not have explained the sound. If when I went to see my doctor and asked him why there was blood in my urine he'd given the same answer, that would also not be an explanation.

 

[sfs]

Then why the continuos homage to evolution where it is not warranted?

Perhaps if you offered an example of an instance where it wasn't warranted it would help.

 

[Anguspure]

Something that explains everything, explains nothing. Scope limitation isn't a weakness in this regard.



Which again limits the answer to, "it's the way it is because that's how the designer made it".

Now if you want to understand the implications of that, consider this excerpt from the Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution:

While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.​

https://botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

The very reason Western Science has become so succesful is because we expected the Universe to be a ratioanally comprehensible place because after all we are created in the image of a rational designer.

That the scientific world now thinks it pulled itself up by it's own boot straps, and that in the absence of a Creator anything they think has any rational basis in truth is complete absurdity.

How does one scientifically test the supernatural? You haven't answered that yet.

Unless you have a way to scientifically test the supernatural that no one else in the history of humanity has come up with, then any complaints about the scientific method are for naught.

In other fields (physics for example) we are able to make an inference beyond the natural with impunity (as long as it does not posit a mind or intelligence of course).
In Biology we encounter all of the elements of design, extremely advanced design, that points beyond the natural (because nothing in the natural world is capable of producing the effect,and certainly not within the time frame allowed) and yet we must put our blinkers on and pretend it's not there.

Methodological naturalistic science defines itself, before the fact, that it will know nothing about the supernatural, so there cannot be a test that sits within it's fences. Nevertheless the one that claims that the natural is all there is has a ideological commitment that has nothing to do with science and deliberatley ignores the evidence that points beyond the wall.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, "

 

[Anguspure]

No, the problem is that if the same explanation can be applied to any state of affairs, then it isn't an explanation. An explanation tells you why something is one way and not another. If when I take my car to the mechanic tomorrow and ask why it's making that grinding sound, he answers, "Because God wanted it that way", he will not have explained the sound. If when I went to see my doctor and asked him why there was blood in my urine he'd given the same answer, that would also not be an explanation.

The explanation says that at the root of it all it was designed by a Creator. It predicts, therefore, that we can expect to find a rational explanation for the phenomina that will satisfy the intellectual curiosity of an intelligent human being.
If we are not intellectually curious about how the Creator achieves things then perhaps we will be satisfied with "Because God wanted it that way" (and there is nothing wrong with that either), but myself and many others continue to be curious as to why He wanted it that way, perhaps so we can learn something from Him and so in some way imitate Him, and this is the very foundation of Scientific endeavour

 

[pitabread]

The very reason Western Science has become so succesful is because we expected the Universe to be a ratioanally comprehensible place because after all we are created in the image of a rational designer.

Unsupported assertion.

That the scientific world now thinks it pulled itself up by it's own boot straps, and that in the absence of a Creator anything they think has any rational basis in truth is complete absurdity.

You can keep complaining about it, but it's not getting you anywhere unless you provide a legitimate alternative.

In other fields (physics for example) we are able to make an inference beyond the natural with impunity (as long as it does not posit a mind or intelligence of course).
In Biology we encounter all of the elements of design, extremely advanced design, that points beyond the natural (because nothing in the natural world is capable of producing the effect,and certainly not within the time frame allowed) and yet we must put our blinkers on and pretend it's not there.

Methodological naturalistic science defines itself, before the fact, that it will know nothing about the supernatural, so there cannot be a test that sits within it's fences. Nevertheless the one that claims that the natural is all there is has a ideological commitment that has nothing to do with science and deliberatley ignores the evidence that points beyond the wall.

Look, you're constantly complaining about the way science does things, but you're not presenting any alternatives.

I posted this hypothesis earlier in the thread: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Tell me how I can scientifically test this hypothesis. If you don't have an answer, then there is no use complaining about it. You've reached the scope limitation of science.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, "

Trotting out an over-quoted Bible passage isn't helping you here. I asked you specific questions about the scientific method and the supernatural. Can you address them or not?

 

[Anguspure]

Perhaps if you offered an example of an instance where it wasn't warranted it would help.

For example, when explaining how the unique bumpy shape of whale flippers has been mimicked to improve wind turbine design, a ScienceDaily article reminded readers that "sea creatures have evolved over millions of years to maximise efficiency of movement through water."2

Similarly, in 2008, Business Week carried a piece on biomimetics noting that "ultra-strong, biodegradable glues" have been developed "by analyzing how mussels cling to rocks under water," and that bullet-trains could be made more aerodynamic if given "a distinctly bird-like nose." But the story couldn't help but point out that these biological templates weren't designed, but rather "evolved in the natural world over billions of years."3

It's uncanny how predictable this theme has become. In another instance, MSNBC explained how "armor" on fish might be copied to improve battle ware for soldiers. Yet the article included the obligatory subheading instructing readers that "millions of years of evolution could provide exactly what we need today."4

 

[sfs]

He is questioning the competence of NS to produce the observed phenomena, that is more than enough to rock the boat and we needn't try and put words in his mouth.

So no, you haven't read any of his work. Judging from his summary, you also don't understand what he's arguing. Wagner does not deny the central importance of NS to adaptive evolution, and no evolutionary biologist thinks that NS by itself is a complete explanation for it.

There are various components to Wagner's critique of some thinking in evolutionary biology. He argues that NS acting on incremental changes to existing structures is not adequate to explain evolutionary novelties (which are quite rare, by the way), and that mutations affecting entire regulatory circuits must be involved. He argues that treating NS as the sole creative force in evolution leads to distorted thinking, and that the existing biology profoundly shapes the available phenotypic change that mutations can produce. He's a solid researcher, a good thinker and many of his criticisms strike me as valid. But absolutely nothing he argues for suggests that there is fundamentally anything going on in the history of life apart from naturally occurring mutations to existing organisms that either do or do not subsequently fix in the population, again for purely natural reasons.

 

[pitabread]

For example, when explaining how the unique bumpy shape of whale flippers has been mimicked to improve wind turbine design, a ScienceDaily article reminded readers that "sea creatures have evolved over millions of years to maximise efficiency of movement through water."2

Similarly, in 2008, Business Week carried a piece on biomimetics noting that "ultra-strong, biodegradable glues" have been developed "by analyzing how mussels cling to rocks under water," and that bullet-trains could be made more aerodynamic if given "a distinctly bird-like nose." But the story couldn't help but point out that these biological templates weren't designed, but rather "evolved in the natural world over billions of years."3

It's uncanny how predictable this theme has become. In another instance, MSNBC explained how "armor" on fish might be copied to improve battle ware for soldiers. Yet the article included the obligatory subheading instructing readers that "millions of years of evolution could provide exactly what we need today."4

FYI, if you're going to copy-paste from other sites, you might want to include a link to the source.

 

[sfs]

The explanation says that at the root of it all it was designed by a Creator.

That's also true of my car's grinding sound and of my hematuria. It's still not an explanation for either.

It predicts, therefore, that we can expect to find a rational explanation for the phenomina that will satisfy the intellectual curiosity of an intelligent human being.

That doesn't follow at all from the premise that a creator designed everything, not without making lots of assumptions about the creator's goals and methods. Now, if you want to restrict consideration to the Christian God as creator, well, then your prediction still seems not to follow. A recurring theme in the Bible is that the ways of the Creator are beyond our understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

254 posts from a question asked by a 7 year old boy.

Impressive.

 

[sfs]

For example, when explaining how the unique bumpy shape of whale flippers has been mimicked to improve wind turbine design, a ScienceDaily article reminded readers that "sea creatures have evolved over millions of years to maximise efficiency of movement through water.

So why is that inappropriate? They did evolve over millions of years to maximize efficiency, which is why their solutions are worth considering. And similarly for the other examples. Sure, there's an element of "gee whiz" here, but that's par for the course in popular descriptions of science. Articles about astronomy often make some comment about how astoundingly far away stars are. What idealogical axe are they trying to sharpen there?

 

[pitabread]

254 posts from a question asked by a 7 year old boy.

Impressive.

Eh, it still pales in comparison to almost 3000 posts in a thread about self-replicating watches.

It's also less impressive considering we still don't have a cogent creationist explanation for the question in the OP.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not if we don't repent.

Life does not improve after repentance. That only changes our standing with God.

 

[Anguspure]

Unsupported assertion.



You can keep complaining about it, but it's not getting you anywhere unless you provide a legitimate alternative.



Look, you're constantly complaining about the way science does things, but you're not presenting any alternatives.

I posted this hypothesis earlier in the thread: Is God's intervention actively required for healthy plant growth?

Tell me how I can scientifically test this hypothesis. If you don't have an answer, then there is no use complaining about it. You've reached the scope limitation of science.



Trotting out an over-quoted Bible passage isn't helping you here. I asked you specific questions about the scientific method and the supernatural. Can you address them or not?

let’s go to Irvine and drop in on [a] debate with Dr. Bahnsen questioning Dr. Stein: Bahnsen: Do you believe there are laws of logic then?
Stein: Absolutely.
Bahnsen: Are they universal?
Stein: They are agreed upon by human beings, not realizing it is just out in nature. Bahnsen: Are they simply conventions then?
Stein: They are conventions that are self-verifying.
Bahnsen: Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
Stein: They are laws of thought, which are interpreted by man.
Bahnsen: Are they material in nature?
Stein: How could a law be material?
Bahnsen: That’s the question I’m going to ask you.
Stein: I would say no.

Notice that Dr. Stein, despite being an atheist and a materialist, admitted that the laws of logic are not material. It was then his turn to question Dr. Bahnsen:

Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?
Bahnsen: Immaterial.
Stein: What is something that’s immaterial?
Bahnsen: Something not extended in space.
Stein: Can you give me any other example, other than God, that’s immaterial? Bahnsen: The laws of logic. [Raucous laughter.]

Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Kindle Locations 909-924). NavPress. Kindle Edition.

While there is certainly evidence from science to support theism, the most important point for this chapter is not that science supports theism but that theism supports science. In other words, theism makes doing science possible. We wouldn’t be able to do science reliably if atheism were true. Only material causes would exist. As we have seen, materialism scuttles free will and destroys our confidence in everything we think. Atheist Thomas Nagel writes, “Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself.” It also ignores the immaterial realities that are necessary for anyone to do science in the first place.

Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Kindle Locations 2820-2826). NavPress. Kindle Edition.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 31.

 

[Anguspure]

Unsupported assertion.



You can keep complaining about it, but it's not getting you anywhere unless you provide a legitimate alternative.



Look, you're constantly complaining about the way science does things, but you're not presenting any alternatives.

I posted this hypothesis earlier in the thread: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Tell me how I can scientifically test this hypothesis. If you don't have an answer, then there is no use complaining about it. You've reached the scope limitation of science.



Trotting out an over-quoted Bible passage isn't helping you here. I asked you specific questions about the scientific method and the supernatural. Can you address them or not?

Atheist evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane put it well. He wrote, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” He also has no reason to trust anything he believes, including atheism or evolution.

Atheist Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA, affirmed Haldane’s material view of reality. In what he called “an astonishing hypothesis,” Crick wrote, “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis (New York: Scribner, 1995), 3.

Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Kindle Locations 1054-1061). NavPress. Kindle Edition.

 

[pitabread]

let’s go to Irvine

<snip>

If you're going to grab a bunch of quotes from other sites, could you at least frame it better in the context of my prior post?

I'm not a particular fan of when people just blatantly copy-paste text from another site without giving it a contextual link to what I was trying to discuss. It's a little bit like if we having an in-person conversation and instead of replying, you simply started playing something randomly from the radio.

 

[Anguspure]

If you're going to grab a bunch of quotes from other sites, could you at least frame it better in the context of my prior post?

I'm not a particular fan of when people just blatantly copy-paste text from another site without giving it a contextual link to what I was trying to discuss. It's a little bit like if we having an in-person conversation and instead of replying, you simply started playing something randomly from the radio.

'Tis a book I am reading, and I can hardly put it better myself.