The Universe and all that is in it

[Smidlee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1497195,00.html

This article is interesting. Our understanding of the universe especially something like "black holes" and "dark matter" is based on mathematics so of course if you stick all those mathematics into the computer it will spit out the same results used to understand our universe the start with. Yet what if black holes ,dark energy, and dark matter doesn't exist outside our math? The whole reason for these invisible stuff to exist is to make our math work out. Einstein even used a "Fudge Factor" to make his math work a times.

 

[2thePoint]

Scientific ideas backed by independent lines of evidence certainly have more scientific weight than ones that don't.

Saying that all opinions are equal is absurd.

Evolution is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidence.
An old earth is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidence (that was in place long before the theory of evolution came about).

Yes, evolution is an assumption, and no, it is not a conclusion based on evidence. Again I ask, do the people here have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than the scientists I quoted? If the most respected members of the evolutionary camp know it's a religion and admit to suppressing contrary evidence, why should I believe you know better?

 

[2thePoint]

This article is interesting. Our understanding of the universe especially something like "black holes" and "dark matter" is based on mathematics so of course if you stick all those mathematics into the computer it will spit out the same results used to understand our universe the start with. Yet what if black holes ,dark energy, and dark matter doesn't exist outside our math? The whole reason for these invisible stuff to exist is to make our math work out. Einstein even used a "Fudge Factor" to make his math work a times.

One of the most time-honored quotes in computer science is this: "Garbage in, garbage out". Computers do what they are programmed to do, and you still have to feed it some assumptions. This is an old ploy (computers don't lie, right?). But you made a good point about needing "stuff to make our math work out". Those "fudge factors" make all the difference in the universe.

 

[notto]

Yes, evolution is an assumption, and no, it is not a conclusion based on evidence. Again I ask, do the people here have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than the scientists I quoted? If the most respected members of the evolutionary camp know it's a religion and admit to suppressing contrary evidence, why should I believe you know better?

What you are saying is simply not true. Evolution was a theory based on evidence. Evidence was and is collected. That evidence is evaluated, and the conclusion reached is that evolution happened. Evolution makes predictions and those predictions can be tested and they are. Evolution can be falsified. All of the characteristics of a scientific theory.

The scientists you quoted are certainly not saying anything about evolutionary theory as being different than any other science. They are explaining science (something which you apparently did not grasp). Where do they say that evolution is a religion?

I must have missed where they point any of this out.

Claiming that those scientists are saying anything like you are stating here based on those quotes is incorrect. Unless you can claim that you have read the original work from which those quotes came in context, using them is simply dishonest and does nothing to the theory of evolution. Science uses evidence, not quotes.

By any definition of a scientific theory, evolution fits. If it is a religion, so is meteorology, archeology, and astronomy.

Your posts seem to basically come down to 'science bad!!!'

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, evolution is an assumption, and no, it is not a conclusion based on evidence. Again I ask, do the people here have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than the scientists I quoted? If the most respected members of the evolutionary camp know it's a religion and admit to suppressing contrary evidence, why should I believe you know better?

The problem is that there is an evolutionism that is a metaphysics drawn out of the science of evolution. This metaphysics is what M.Ruse is talking about, not the lower level science. The metaphysics is a set of statements about values, about morality, about good and evil, all things which science does not itself talk about.

For instance, who mates with whom, what sperm fertilize which egg are from our viewpoint random. Therefore science says something like 'there exists a random shuffling of genes each generation'. A metaphysical statement makes the claim that science teaches that life is random and meaningless, and tries to support its statement with the scientific one. It reminds me of "figures don't lie but liars can figure", one is a scientific statement, one is a metaphysical statement masquerading as a scientific one. This doesn't make science a religion, it illustrates that scientists are religious and use their science to build their metaphysics, so what? you need to separate the levels in the discussion and address your concerns to the right level in the discourse, not to confuse assumptions with conclusions and science with scientism.

....

 

[Sojourner<><]

So my objection to the original statement about "what scientists know" is that they can't know. It is not a question of real scientific fact but of presuppositions. We all have the same facts, the scientists on both sides all go to the same universities, but the differences in interpretation of those facts are the result of one's presuppositions. In other words, the debate between creation and evolution is not between religion and science, but between two religions.

Well, to me it sounds like you've gotten right to the point. Last time I checked both sides have been locked in a perpetual cycle of argument and rebuttal for years with little progress in either direction. Still neither side has been scientifically proven nor disproven. So then shouldn't a believing Christian be more inclined to trust the Word of God which has been tested, tried and proven for thousands of years more than a secular school of thought that's now dominated by an atheistic belief system?

 

[gluadys]

Nothing about origins is testable or reproducible. Everyday realities like gravity are. So we're back to the fact that one person's opinion has no more scientific weight than another's.

That depends on whether one is dealing with the physical or metaphysical aspects of origins. The physical aspects are testable by following the logical consequences to the present to determine what must be in the present if the past is what we suppose it to be and then checking to see if that is the case.

Naturalism is an assumption, not a proven fact. No one is arguing that miracles are out of the reach of science, but that, for that very reason, science has nothing to say about origins. By your own statement here, you agree that this is not a scientific problem but a philosophical one.

Philosophical naturalism is a philosophy based on the assumption that nature is all there is.
Methodological naturalism is a method for discovering how nature works and does not imply holding the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Do you seriously suggest that nature works differently depending on whether or not one believes in a Creator?

And neither is the assertion "The universe just happened" a scientific statement.

Agreed. It is also a philosophical/theological assertion that "The universe happened because God made it."

Both statements are consistent with the evidence of the origin of the universe in the Big Bang.

Which means that one's presuppositions determine the outcome of any testing to be done, making all results ultimately dependent upon one's philosophical bias.

No, that is not possible if nature is real independently of us and our imaginations. What one's presuppositions will determine are the questions one poses and how one tests for them. But the results are not determined by these presuppositions. If they were, a scientist would never get anomalous results. But anomalous results are par for the course in science.

Furthermore, and most importantly, if presuppositions determined the outcome of testing, scientists with different presuppositions would get different results. But in that case, no result would be helpful in understanding how nature works. In fact, what comes to be established as scientific consensus are precisely those results which do not change with varying presuppositions, but remain consistent whatever presuppositions an individual scientist begins with.

Your point? Don't you see that you're agreeing with me here? I'm putting the presumption of evolution on the same level as the presumption of intelligent design, and you are agreeing.

Evolution is not a presumption. It is a conclusion from the evidence.

And neither is evolution testable.

It is both testable and tested.

 

[2thePoint]

What you are saying is simply not true. Evolution was a theory based on evidence. Evidence was and is collected. That evidence is evaluated, and the conclusion reached is that evolution happened.

Not so. Creationists and evolutionists aren't arguing about the facts, but about the conclusions, the interpretations. We aren't contesting real scientific evidence, but assumptions and philosophies.

The scientists you quoted are certainly not saying anything about evolutionary theory as being different than any other science. They are explaining science (something which you apparently did not grasp). Where do they say that evolution is a religion?

So you now resort to personal insult because you have no case; sad but predictable. And I could give you more quotes from them saying it's a religion, but somehow I think you'd just brush them off.

Science uses evidence, not quotes.

Your faith in the imaginary unbiased scientists is commendable but misguided.

Your posts seem to basically come down to 'science bad!!!'

You have that backwards. Science is good, but presumption is bad. It is naive to think there is no presumption in evolution. I've always been into science and thoroughly enjoy studying it. It's fairy tales like evolution I don't swallow.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, they do, because it all depends one one's starting assumptions. If you start with naturalism and long ages, that's what your data will show. If you start with supernaturalism and short ages, that's what your data will show. The difference is not due to science but to opinion, hence the wildly varied results.

Data does not change with opinion. Data is what theories are required to explain.

Supernaturalism does not explain data, even when it is the valid cause of the data. Supernaturalism simply asserts that God directly intervened to cause an anomaly for which we have no natural explanation. As in the floating ax-head example.

 

[gluadys]

Prove me wrong. Show me how any one of those quotes misrepresents the original meaning.

Tell me the title of the essay in which the Gould quote appears and I will look it up in one of his collections of essays. Or give me a link to the article in Nature. I believe that if it is in their archives I can access it for free. I have read a fair bit of Gould, and I recognize the gist of his argument here, but need to see the quote in context.

IMO, TEs are inconsistent.

You keep saying this, but I don't know yet where you see the inconsistency.

And on the other hand, there are quite a few non-religious scientists who do not accept evolution.

Name five. How many are biologists?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well, to me it sounds like you've gotten right to the point. Last time I checked both sides have been locked in a perpetual cycle of argument and rebuttal for years with little progress in either direction. Still neither side has been scientifically proven nor disproven. So then shouldn't a believing Christian be more inclined to trust the Word of God which has been tested, tried and proven for thousands of years more than a secular school of thought that's now dominated by an atheistic belief system?

what a neat statement!!

it seems to say that science and religion are locked in a discussion where neither side progresses. however last time i looked there were 1000's of new books and periodicals at the university library on scientific topics where great progress appears to be happening, yet when i talk with people at the church we seem to rehash centuries old divisions where there has not only been no progress but division after division.
so i am not sure exactly who is progressing and who is splitting into small mutually exclusive enclaves.

...

 

[notto]

Not so. Creationists and evolutionists aren't arguing about the facts, but about the conclusions, the interpretations. We aren't contesting real scientific evidence, but assumptions and philosophies.

Creationist conclusions are falsified by the evidence. There are multiple independent lines of evidenc that falsify creationism. This is real, scientific evidence that cannot be explained by creationists and directly contradicts their models and conclusions. No assumptions or philosophies needed. There conclusions are not equal because there is evidence that contradicts them.

 

[2thePoint]

Well, as expected, this conversation has reached the point of "Yes it is! No, it isn't! Oh yeah? Sez who?". We could throw our assertions back and forth forever and no one will prove any point. Neither side has a scientific or philosophical advantage, except that Creationism explains origins and evolution never can, because it cannot explain the First Cause. I am on the side of observable, repeatable science, not assumptions and bias masquerading as science. You can put your faith in people who have convinced you that their opinions are science, but I'm putting mine in God.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, evolution is an assumption, and no, it is not a conclusion based on evidence. Again I ask, do the people here have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than the scientists I quoted? If the most respected members of the evolutionary camp know it's a religion and admit to suppressing contrary evidence, why should I believe you know better?

All of the scientists you quoted would agree that evolution is a conclusion from the evidence. None were saying that evolution is a religion. You are confusing some basic necessities of scientific method with an opinion on the scientific validity of evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well, as expected, this conversation has reached the point of "Yes it is! No, it isn't! Oh yeah? Sez who?". We could throw our assertions back and forth forever and no one will prove any point. Neither side has a scientific or philosophical advantage, except that Creationism explains origins and evolution never can, because it cannot explain the First Cause. I am on the side of observable, repeatable science, not assumptions and bias masquerading as science. You can put your faith in people who have convinced you that their opinions are science, but I'm putting mine in God.

science never explains first causes.
that was part of the way the system evolved. first causes are divisive and impossible to show with a methodologically naturalistic framework, so science deliberately excludes the topic.

...

 

[shernren]

Fine, 2thepoint, show me a sequence of naturally occurring events that can cause the formation of an old isochron line in rocks. You say we're quarreling about assumptions? We can, you know.

Creationism doesn't explain the origins. Shocked?

You shouldn't be. Because any theory that tries to explain that very first moment of existence is unscientific by definition. Both creationism and superdeterminism are therefore unscientific.

 

[notto]

Well, as expected, this conversation has reached the point of "Yes it is! No, it isn't! Oh yeah? Sez who?". We could throw our assertions back and forth forever and no one will prove any point. Neither side has a scientific or philosophical advantage, except that Creationism explains origins and evolution never can, because it cannot explain the First Cause. I am on the side of observable, repeatable science, not assumptions and bias masquerading as science. You can put your faith in people who have convinced you that their opinions are science, but I'm putting mine in God.

The same method that creationism uses to explain origins was used to explain lightening and earthquakes as well as disease. It turned out it was a premature conclusion. 'God did it' explains nothing because it explains everything and is not very useful in a scientific context.

Creationism of the flavor of young earth creationism has been falsified (before evolution even hit the scene) so again, the conclusion reached by the YEC mindset was premature and conflicts with what we actually find in the creation itself.

Science doesn't demand that everything it explains be directly observable or repeatable. It demands that the observation of evidence used to draw a conclusion be observable and repeatable. The mechanisms of evolution are directly observable. The evidence for evolution over long periods of time is directly observable and this observation is repeatable.

It was only after this evidence was examined that the theory of evolution came about. Suggesting that it is an assumption is incorrect. YEC was the accepted assumption until people went out looking for evidence for it and found out that it was falsified. So, they had to come up with a new theory for the evidence they found. You can't rewrite this history - this is how it actually happened and it is quite well known and documented.

Ignoring this history won't make it go away. It only shows how far you will go to try to discredit something that disagrees with your own assumptions.

 

[2thePoint]

Fine, 2thepoint, show me a sequence of naturally occurring events that can cause the formation of an old isochron line in rocks. You say we're quarreling about assumptions? We can, you know.

Alright, one more post. Here's a link to a slew of articles about isochrons:

http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?Realm=Entire+ICR+Website&Terms=isochron

Happy reading!

 

[gluadys]

Not so. Creationists and evolutionists aren't arguing about the facts, but about the conclusions, the interpretations. We aren't contesting real scientific evidence, but assumptions and philosophies.

You are confusing two different things here: conclusions (which are based on evidence) and interpretations of those conclusions (which will be by nature metaphysical). In so far as creationists and evolutionists come to different conclusions from the evidence, they are arguing about facts, because the facts, the evidence, is the basis of the conclusions. So a theory either is or is not predicated on available facts.

But once the facts have been ascertained and a theory (=conclusion) established which rests solidly on those facts, then you can have varying interpretations of what those conclusions mean for one's philosophy/theology. The latter is not science.

Creation "science" too often gets around the problem of evidence by not attempting to explain all relevant evidence. It looks for evidence that supports (or can be manipulated to support) its philosophic presuppositions and ignores the rest. Actual science cannot do this. The standard for a scientific theory is that it fits with all the evidence, that it predicts/explains all the evidence and nothing less than all the evidence. Not until creationism can do this will it meet the criterion of a scientific pursuit.

Your faith in the imaginary unbiased scientists is commendable but misguided.

Science does not require that scientists be unbiased, but that they present their findings to public critique by those who do not share their biases. When a scientific conclusion is agreed to by the majority of scientists, who have many different personal biases, then we can have confidence that the conclusion is not fundmentally grounded in any scientist's personal bias.

 

[gluadys]

You can put your faith in people who have convinced you that their opinions are science, but I'm putting mine in God.

Evolution is not atheism. I have confidence that scientists are on the right track with evolution as I see how it explains the existing evidence. I also put my faith in God.

I know you consider this inconsistent, but I fail to find any inconsistency. So you will have to point out to me how this is inconsistent.