Uhm. So you say "Don´t go off-topic" with a lot more words?
Sorry. But I didn´t want to bring up a month old thread just to say what I did. And no matter what you say this is at least semi related to those other threads.
Without lambasting any one group, we can't separate ourselves from our basic beliefs, or "presuppositions", if you will. The problem with "science" and "knowledge" is that man DOES NOT learn by experience, he learns by FAITH (and I don't mean that in a "religious" sort of way---although man is a religious creature). If man learned by experience there would be no Atlantic City or Las Vegas, and there would be no lotteries in the the U.S.
Following the most dirt-simple fact gathering tells us that "the house always wins" with a very painful financial reminder to drive that point home.
Just ask Bill Bennett.
There is nothing rational about gambling, the participants simply believe in "chance"---enough to ignore every piece of evidence to the contrary.
It is the same way for all who are not participating in the Truth.
except that the majority of players know they will lose and play only a certain amount of money: they have learned from experience that gambling is fun and so they will spend some money . . . not the whole barn just some money . . . .and the drinks are free . .
public peer review is also a criteria for Scientific Theory
one of the clues that somebody isn't a Scientist is that lack of cricital review
another is that they publish in books before journals (because they want the PR and talk show profile, not the critical Scientific review of Academic peers)
seeking a pulpit rather than a peer review is a sign of ego, not science
public peer review is also a criteria for Scientific Theory
Yes it is a part indeed
Quote:
one of the clues that somebody isn't a Scientist is that lack of cricital review
Exactly
Quote:
another is that they publish in books before journals (because they want the PR and talk show profile, not the critical Scientific review of Academic peers)
seeking a pulpit rather than a peer review is a sign of ego, not science
Sort of like the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species?
I really do appriciate you adding to my question about what a Scientific Theory is but rather than fully answer it I think you have revealed that we all still really don't know exactly what constitutes a "scientific theory". No fear it is not your fault nor mine rather just a mystery we may never know.
Note that Dr. Meyer is an historian, not a scientist. Not that amatuers can't do science, but he has no formal training or experience in the discipline he critiques.
Note that Dr. Meyer is an historian, not a scientist. Not that amatuers can't do science, but he has no formal training or experience in the discipline he critiques.
Many human-scientists are eager to jump to your neck and bite you. I am of the opinion, as educated in part to be a 'soft' scientist, that history, the study of languages, etc. is science, at least the parts of it that conform to the three criteria I mention above.
"During the last thirty years the idea of design has undergone a renaissance in some scientific and philosophical circles."
Which would those be? References?
"Developments in physics and cosmology, in particular, have placed the word design back inthe scientific vocabulary as physicists have unveiled a universe apparently fine-tuned for the possibility of human life (see discussion in chapter four)."
No they haven't.
References?
"The speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction, the properties of the water molecule and many other features of the cosmic architecture appear to have been fortuitously arranged and balanced for human benefit."
No they haven't. References?
"While many have postulated so-called anthropic principles or
"many worlds scenarios" to explain (or explain away) this apparent
design without recourse to God,"
References?
"some have eschewed these secular notions and posited the activity
of a preexistent intelligence a Creator as the simplest explanation
for the "coincidences" upon which life seems to depend."
So what? The simplest explaination is that the "big bang" was a purely natural event. Adding a creator, without evidence, adds complexity.
...
"Despite this renewal of interest in the (intelligent) design hypothesis among physicists and cosmologists,"
No there's not. References?
"biologists have remained reluctant to consider such notions."
For the same reason physicists and cosmologists have rejected the hypothesis. There is no evidence for it.
And so on, and so forth ...
Can there be a scientific theory of creationism?
Sure, when they give evidence that agrees with their models and theories. They also need to provide possible consequences, and experiments for testing those consequences.
This will always be the stumbling block for creationists.
The evidence supports evolution. They have to come up with something monumental to oveturn so much evidence.
So what do we have?
Evidence ---> Theories & Models ---> predictions ---> more evidence ---> Theories and ...
You get the idea. It's circular. Although, theories can come before the evidence.
For example, the decay of protons. Theories were proposed that suggest this could happen. They made predictions. The predictions did not agree with experiments that were then performed to test those predictions. The theory has been modified, ...
This is science. It is not a personal opinion, pulled out of this air. It isn't accepted because the equations look nice, although there is nothing wrong with that. A theory was proposed - proton decay - a model was developed - insert a knowledge of group theory, in perticular special unitary groups - including predictions, and experiments were performed - involving large tanks of water deep underground. The predictions were not backed up by experiment. New models have been developed - insert a knowledge of group theory ...
While the evidence continues to support the theories and models, they remain valid. As do their predictions, until the evidence shows those predictions to be false. Then the theories and models get modified or replaced.
It has happened time and time again. This does not invalidate science, or the scientific method.
It's called research.
Does evolution fit into this? Yes. There is evidence.
Theories and models have been proposed. Does the evidence continue to support these theories? Yes. Can evolution be tested? Yes, and is being done with fruit flies, to give one example.
Research continues. Some has recently been in the news.
Want to do your own? Go to the Galapagos or Hawaiian islands.
Take a quick trip to Lake Victoria.
Is there evidence for creationism? No. Not a problem at this stage of questioning - in the same sense as the proton decay theory.
Is there a model? No - in the "scientific" sense, not the "religious" sense. Are there predictions that can be tested? No.
Now it gets worse. Is there a model of our origins that does agree with the observations? That does make testable predictions? Yes.
Should this model take precedence over the no-model creationist "theory"? Yes.
This reasoning is why we have the "big bang" instead of the "steady state" theory.
It's called science.
Creationism is not science.
It fails all the tests of science.
Much to creationists dismay, the "scientific method" isn't going to change for them. This, I believe is the purpose of the essay.
Ok, one final point ...
"The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins
research in another way."
There is no a priori exclusion. It is excluded because, on the basis of the scientific principles used to explain the evidence, "design" offers nothing. There is no evidence for "design". "Religious belief" is not evidence.
Since the essay likes to quote people, so shall I ...
"The modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists. It is far and away the best explanatory framework ever proposed for understanding data from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology,
ecology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular genetics.
...
Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science class.
It is creationist belief stripped of its religious origins in order to
appear credible and nonsectarian. It lacks scientific validity because
there is no evidence for it - while anyone who has picked up a fossil
in a creek bed has held evidence for evolution in his or her hands."
David King, associate professor in the anatomy department at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Carbondale.
"As Catholic educators, scientists, and scholars we were dismayed to read the article "Creationism Simmers in Greensburg Salem" in the Monday, May 24, 1999 edition of the Tribune Review. The proposal brought forward by Director Maryann Roberts and supported by three other members of the Greensburg Salem School Board suggests that these members need to enroll in the science
classes that they are attempting to manipulate. Ms. Roberts is grossly misinformed when she says that it is not "good science" to present the theory of evolution without presenting the "theory of creation". The teaching of creation is not a scientific theory; it is outside the realm of the scientific method. Presenting a non-existent "theory of creation" in a science class is both bad science and bad theology."
Dr. John J Smetanka, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics, Saint Vincent College
Father Mark Gruber, Ph.D., O.S.B., Professor of Sociology-Anthropology, Saint Vincent College
Dr. Richard D. Wissolik, Ph.D., Professor of English, Saint Vincent College
Greetings. You are more than entitled to your views. This thread is about one issue and it is not evolution / design. It is rather are the two concepts candidates that qualify to be considered "Scientific Theories" or neither or just one of the two.
Greetings. You are more than entitled to your views. This thread is about one issue and it is not evolution / design. It is rather are the two concepts candidates that qualify to be considered "Scientific Theories" or neither or just one of the two.
Fellowship
My post answered your question.
The "theory of evolution" qualifies as a scientific theory.
The "theory of creationism" does not.
This is not simply my personal opinion. Creationism fails all
the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
The "theory of evolution" qualifies as a scientific theory.
The "theory of creationism" does not.
This is not simply my personal opinion. Creationism fails all
the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
What tests?
I want to know what tests you refer to. I agree with you I am not interested in personal opinion. I want to know what the tests are to determine what would qualify to indeed be a "scientific theory"
You posted an opinion in your last reply:
Quote:
"The modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists. It is far and away the best explanatory framework ever proposed for understanding data from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology,
ecology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular genetics.
...
Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science class.
It is creationist belief stripped of its religious origins in order to
appear credible and nonsectarian. It lacks scientific validity because
there is no evidence for it - while anyone who has picked up a fossil
in a creek bed has held evidence for evolution in his or her hands."
David King, associate professor in the anatomy department at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Carbondale.
Again just an an opinion with bias.
That is easy to do as I can add the following:
Quote:
If design is so readily detectable outside science, and if its detectability is one of the key factors keeping scientists honest, why should design be barred from the content of science? Why do Dawkins and Crick feel compelled to constantly remind us that biology studies things that only appear to be designed, but that in fact are not designed? Why couldn?t biology study things that are designed?
Creationism fails all the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
Evolution has testable repeatable results?
Evolution is a half-baked generalization that has NO FREAKING IDEA how rocks turned into human beings---there are no models that work, the complexity of life, symbiosis and ecosystems in general preclude such things.
By definition you cannot explain what you don't truly understand---and "science" isn't there yet.
I'm sorry this thread isn't a rerun of Nova, but we just can't make unsubstantiated statements based on wishful thinking shined on by an delusional opinion of science.
The problem with fellowship and his fellow creationists is that they don't like playing by the rules. They want to know what constitutes a theory. When they are shown this, and see that creationism doesn't constitute a scientific theory, they get all uppity.
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What tests?
I want to know what tests you refer to. I agree with you I am not interested in personal opinion. I want to know what the tests are to determine what would qualify to indeed be a "scientific theory"
Read my post with your eyes open next time.
The tests ...
1. Evidence exists (yes/no).
2. Models and theories have been proposed (yes/no).
3. Models and theories are consistent given the evidence (yes/no).
4. Models make predictions/assumptions (yes/no).
5. Predictions agree with the evidence (yes/no)
6. More evidence is found (yes/no).
7. Model still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
8. Predictions still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
and so on in a circular fashion.
Add some statistical measures in there if you want.
You don't need to start at the first test, you can start with a theory and model - which is why you can have a creationist theory.
Unfortuantely creationism fails all the other tests.
Evolution does not.
Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not.
This is not a personal opinion.
Quote:
You posted an opinion in your last reply:
Nope, wrong again.
Quote:
Again what I am seeking from the group is what are the "tests" that provide the framework for what indeed is needed to be a "scientific theory"
Not opinion based on bias but indeed neutral rules that define what a "scientific theory is and is not.
Thank you,
Fellowship
Already been answered.
You simply don't like the answer, and like the author of the essay, you want the "tests" to be modified so creationism can be classified a scientific theory.
Evolution is a half-baked generalization that has NO FREAKING IDEA how rocks turned into human beings---there are no models that work, the complexity of life, symbiosis and ecosystems in general preclude such things.
You have no idea what evolution is about.
You already know it has nothing to do with how rocks turned into humans.
You are simply being dishonest.
Quote:
By definition you cannot explain what you don't truly understand---and "science" isn't there yet.
True, I have no idea how you are able to put more than two words together.
I doubt the greatest medical minds will ever figure that out.
You already know it has nothing to do with how rocks turned into humans.
You are simply being dishonest.
True, I have no idea how you are able to put more than two words together.
I doubt the greatest medical minds will ever figure that out.
This isn't a game for the simpleminded or ignorant----surely you can do better than that!
Let me give you some advice:
Don't go where you can't fight your way out. Go back to your epsidodes of Nova and the lizard chicken issuse of National Geographic. Grow up, study the science and the philosophy of what you claim and get back to those who have.
"Is too! Is too!" answers just don't make muster.
Really, you're going to give pluralists a bad reputation.
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Taken from Link 02 I would copy and paste the quotes but they are too numerous.
Quote:
The second conflict between Darwinism and natural history is the phenomenon of stasis (stability, non-evolution). Geology reveals the stability of forms rather than their gradual transformation into substantially different body plans. The stability of the higher taxa in particular suggests the existence of natural processes which prevent major evolutionary change from occurring in a gradual step-by-step basis
I started a longer response at home, but didn't get time to finish before leaving on a trip to Vermont (and then on to Montreal tomorrow). So, here's my somewhat shorter on-the-road version:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Must a scientific theory be testable?
Yes... but that doesn't mean what many anti-evolutionists try to conveniently make it mean -- that the only way to test the theory of evolution would be to recreate evolution in a lab experiment. There are many ways to test theories and build evidence even when the Big Picture is difficult or impossible to test directly.
Must a scientific theory be exclusively naturalistic?
I wouldn't say it's an absolute requirement, but it is hard to imagine a supernaturalistic theory being held to be superior to a naturalist theory for at least a couple of of reasons.
(1) Occam's Razor: Supernatural explanations typically "multiply entities" -- that is, they add complication without adding explanatory power.
"Intelligent Design" purports to address the issue of "irreducible complexity", for example, but all it does is introduce an extra entity -- a Designer or a God -- as a pre-existing source of complexity.
Where does the Designer's complexity come from, if there was no one around to design the Designer? Assume he's spontaneously or inately capable of complexity? If so, then why not skip the Designer part of the explanation and assume that, if something has to be capable of spontaneous complexity that the physical universe itself is that thing?
Show me a supernatural explanation that does not needlessly create new entities, that actually answers a question rather than moving the same question elsewhere and renaming it, and you'll have shown me a supernatural explanation that stands a chance at being better scientifically than a natural one.
(2) The fruits of naturalistic theory: At one time, practically everything in the world was explained supernaturally. The sun rising and setting. The winds blowing. The rain falling. Unwillingness to be satisfied with simply saying that these things happen because spirits or gods make them happen -- "explanations" that really do no explaining whatsoever -- has led to greatly increased knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.
Given this history, I'd say it's reasonable that science looks unfavorably on supernatural explanations. They are typically nothing more than ways to dress up saying "I don't know", but make your ignorance sound more grand.
I invite you to read the following and weigh in with your thoughts.
The best I can say is that Mr. Moreland has a very eloquent and erudite way of completely missing some obvious distinctions between supernatural and natural explanations.
From Moreland's text:
All modern science, not just biological evolutionary theory, by definition excludes God. . . . There is no rule book that spells this out, and indeed it has been argued that it is an arbitrary restriction.
Simply reread what I've already written in this post... there's nothing at all arbitrary about science's general devaluation of supernatural explanations. If we're going to use vague passive voice claims, I can truthfully claim that "indeed it has been argued that" thunder is caused by the wrath of Thor. Truthful as that may be, it says nothing about the meteorological expertise of those who did said arguing.
I'm going to repeat a challenge to you, FCiB, to which you have yet to rise: Without just pointing to a link or quoting someone else, tell us, in your own words what you think does and does not consitute scientific evidence, and how the explanatory value of theories should be weighed. I'd especially appreciate it if you searched back to my post in another thread where I drew an analogy with a murder investigation.
Just because we haven't quantised gravity, doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist, or that quantum gravity isn't a scientific theory.
No one has ever seen a quark. That doesn't mean we should throw away quantum chromodynamics, or that it's not a scientific theory.
Wow you make the point of the link I provided in the opening of this thread. Have you even read it? The author clearly uses logic as you say above to demonstrate that indeed Science will allow concepts to be enough for theory. I for one have no issue at all with this. The question then becomes if "Science" is welcome to such conceptual (without concrete proof or evidence) ideas to be part of a theory why then is the concept of ID not allowed this luxury?
In case you did not read the link I provided in the opening of this thread here is a little quote:
Quote:
Yet as is now well known, positivism soon self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, molecules, quarks and universal laws.
another snip:
Quote:
With the death of positivism in the 1950s, demarcationists took a different tack. Other semantic criteria emerged, such as Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions.
Newtonian mechanics, for example, assumed as its core three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. On the basis of these, Newton made a number of predictions about the positions of planets in the solar system. When observations failed to corroborate some of his predictions, he did not reject his core assumptions. Instead, he scrutinized some of his auxiliary hypotheses to explain the discrepancies between theory and observation. For example, he examined his working assumption that planets were perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force. As Imre Lakatos has shown, Newton's refusal to repudiate his core in the face of anomalies enabled him to refine his theory and eventually led to its tremendous success. Newton's refusal to accept putatively falsifying results certainly did not call into question the scientific status of his gravitational theory or his three laws.
The function of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific testing suggests that many scientific theories, including those in so-called hard sciences, may be very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify conclusively. Yet many theories that have been falsified in practice via the consensus judgment of the scientific community must qualify as scientific according to the falsifiability criterion. Since they have been falsified, they are obviously falsifiable, and since they are falsifiable, they would seem to be scientific.
And so it has gone generally with demarcation criteria. Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science. Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science. As a result, with few exceptions most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question "What methods distinguish science from nonscience?" as both intractable and uninteresting. What, after all, is in a name? Certainly not automatic epistemic warrant or authority. Thus philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific but whether it is true or warranted by the evidence. Thus, as Martin Eger has summarized, "demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."
Comments
Sorry. But I didn´t want to bring up a month old thread just to say what I did. And no matter what you say this is at least semi related to those other threads.
Originally posted by ena
Without lambasting any one group, we can't separate ourselves from our basic beliefs, or "presuppositions", if you will. The problem with "science" and "knowledge" is that man DOES NOT learn by experience, he learns by FAITH (and I don't mean that in a "religious" sort of way---although man is a religious creature). If man learned by experience there would be no Atlantic City or Las Vegas, and there would be no lotteries in the the U.S.
Following the most dirt-simple fact gathering tells us that "the house always wins" with a very painful financial reminder to drive that point home.
Just ask Bill Bennett.
There is nothing rational about gambling, the participants simply believe in "chance"---enough to ignore every piece of evidence to the contrary.
It is the same way for all who are not participating in the Truth.
except that the majority of players know they will lose and play only a certain amount of money: they have learned from experience that gambling is fun and so they will spend some money . . . not the whole barn just some money . . . .and the drinks are free . .
one of the clues that somebody isn't a Scientist is that lack of cricital review
another is that they publish in books before journals (because they want the PR and talk show profile, not the critical Scientific review of Academic peers)
seeking a pulpit rather than a peer review is a sign of ego, not science
Originally posted by curiousuburb
public peer review is also a criteria for Scientific Theory
Yes it is a part indeed
one of the clues that somebody isn't a Scientist is that lack of cricital review
Exactly
another is that they publish in books before journals (because they want the PR and talk show profile, not the critical Scientific review of Academic peers)
seeking a pulpit rather than a peer review is a sign of ego, not science
Sort of like the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species?
I really do appriciate you adding to my question about what a Scientific Theory is but rather than fully answer it I think you have revealed that we all still really don't know exactly what constitutes a "scientific theory". No fear it is not your fault nor mine rather just a mystery we may never know.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Sort of like the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species? [/B]
My guess is you have never bothered to discover the decade when peer reviewed journals took off. Not surprising.
Originally posted by Towel
Note that Dr. Meyer is an historian, not a scientist. Not that amatuers can't do science, but he has no formal training or experience in the discipline he critiques.
Many human-scientists are eager to jump to your neck and bite you. I am of the opinion, as educated in part to be a 'soft' scientist, that history, the study of languages, etc. is science, at least the parts of it that conform to the three criteria I mention above.
Which would those be? References?
"Developments in physics and cosmology, in particular, have placed the word design back inthe scientific vocabulary as physicists have unveiled a universe apparently fine-tuned for the possibility of human life (see discussion in chapter four)."
No they haven't.
References?
"The speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction, the properties of the water molecule and many other features of the cosmic architecture appear to have been fortuitously arranged and balanced for human benefit."
No they haven't. References?
"While many have postulated so-called anthropic principles or
"many worlds scenarios" to explain (or explain away) this apparent
design without recourse to God,"
References?
"some have eschewed these secular notions and posited the activity
of a preexistent intelligence a Creator as the simplest explanation
for the "coincidences" upon which life seems to depend."
So what? The simplest explaination is that the "big bang" was a purely natural event. Adding a creator, without evidence, adds complexity.
...
"Despite this renewal of interest in the (intelligent) design hypothesis among physicists and cosmologists,"
No there's not. References?
"biologists have remained reluctant to consider such notions."
For the same reason physicists and cosmologists have rejected the hypothesis. There is no evidence for it.
And so on, and so forth ...
Can there be a scientific theory of creationism?
Sure, when they give evidence that agrees with their models and theories. They also need to provide possible consequences, and experiments for testing those consequences.
This will always be the stumbling block for creationists.
The evidence supports evolution. They have to come up with something monumental to oveturn so much evidence.
So what do we have?
Evidence ---> Theories & Models ---> predictions ---> more evidence ---> Theories and ...
You get the idea. It's circular. Although, theories can come before the evidence.
For example, the decay of protons. Theories were proposed that suggest this could happen. They made predictions. The predictions did not agree with experiments that were then performed to test those predictions. The theory has been modified, ...
This is science. It is not a personal opinion, pulled out of this air. It isn't accepted because the equations look nice, although there is nothing wrong with that. A theory was proposed - proton decay - a model was developed - insert a knowledge of group theory, in perticular special unitary groups - including predictions, and experiments were performed - involving large tanks of water deep underground. The predictions were not backed up by experiment. New models have been developed - insert a knowledge of group theory ...
While the evidence continues to support the theories and models, they remain valid. As do their predictions, until the evidence shows those predictions to be false. Then the theories and models get modified or replaced.
It has happened time and time again. This does not invalidate science, or the scientific method.
It's called research.
Does evolution fit into this? Yes. There is evidence.
Theories and models have been proposed. Does the evidence continue to support these theories? Yes. Can evolution be tested? Yes, and is being done with fruit flies, to give one example.
Research continues. Some has recently been in the news.
Want to do your own? Go to the Galapagos or Hawaiian islands.
Take a quick trip to Lake Victoria.
Is there evidence for creationism? No. Not a problem at this stage of questioning - in the same sense as the proton decay theory.
Is there a model? No - in the "scientific" sense, not the "religious" sense. Are there predictions that can be tested? No.
Now it gets worse. Is there a model of our origins that does agree with the observations? That does make testable predictions? Yes.
Should this model take precedence over the no-model creationist "theory"? Yes.
This reasoning is why we have the "big bang" instead of the "steady state" theory.
It's called science.
Creationism is not science.
It fails all the tests of science.
Much to creationists dismay, the "scientific method" isn't going to change for them. This, I believe is the purpose of the essay.
Ok, one final point ...
"The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins
research in another way."
There is no a priori exclusion. It is excluded because, on the basis of the scientific principles used to explain the evidence, "design" offers nothing. There is no evidence for "design". "Religious belief" is not evidence.
Since the essay likes to quote people, so shall I ...
"The modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists. It is far and away the best explanatory framework ever proposed for understanding data from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology,
ecology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular genetics.
...
Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science class.
It is creationist belief stripped of its religious origins in order to
appear credible and nonsectarian. It lacks scientific validity because
there is no evidence for it - while anyone who has picked up a fossil
in a creek bed has held evidence for evolution in his or her hands."
David King, associate professor in the anatomy department at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Carbondale.
http://www.therazor.org/Spring02/evolution.htm
Or this ...
"As Catholic educators, scientists, and scholars we were dismayed to read the article "Creationism Simmers in Greensburg Salem" in the Monday, May 24, 1999 edition of the Tribune Review. The proposal brought forward by Director Maryann Roberts and supported by three other members of the Greensburg Salem School Board suggests that these members need to enroll in the science
classes that they are attempting to manipulate. Ms. Roberts is grossly misinformed when she says that it is not "good science" to present the theory of evolution without presenting the "theory of creation". The teaching of creation is not a scientific theory; it is outside the realm of the scientific method. Presenting a non-existent "theory of creation" in a science class is both bad science and bad theology."
Dr. John J Smetanka, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics, Saint Vincent College
Father Mark Gruber, Ph.D., O.S.B., Professor of Sociology-Anthropology, Saint Vincent College
Dr. Richard D. Wissolik, Ph.D., Professor of English, Saint Vincent College
http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academic...OpEd_final.htm
See, we can all play this game.
Greetings. You are more than entitled to your views. This thread is about one issue and it is not evolution / design. It is rather are the two concepts candidates that qualify to be considered "Scientific Theories" or neither or just one of the two.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
xenu,
Greetings. You are more than entitled to your views. This thread is about one issue and it is not evolution / design. It is rather are the two concepts candidates that qualify to be considered "Scientific Theories" or neither or just one of the two.
Fellowship
My post answered your question.
The "theory of evolution" qualifies as a scientific theory.
The "theory of creationism" does not.
This is not simply my personal opinion. Creationism fails all
the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
Originally posted by xenu
My post answered your question.
The "theory of evolution" qualifies as a scientific theory.
The "theory of creationism" does not.
This is not simply my personal opinion. Creationism fails all
the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
What tests?
I want to know what tests you refer to. I agree with you I am not interested in personal opinion. I want to know what the tests are to determine what would qualify to indeed be a "scientific theory"
You posted an opinion in your last reply:
"The modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists. It is far and away the best explanatory framework ever proposed for understanding data from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology,
ecology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular genetics.
...
Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science class.
It is creationist belief stripped of its religious origins in order to
appear credible and nonsectarian. It lacks scientific validity because
there is no evidence for it - while anyone who has picked up a fossil
in a creek bed has held evidence for evolution in his or her hands."
David King, associate professor in the anatomy department at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Carbondale.
Again just an an opinion with bias.
That is easy to do as I can add the following:
If design is so readily detectable outside science, and if its detectability is one of the key factors keeping scientists honest, why should design be barred from the content of science? Why do Dawkins and Crick feel compelled to constantly remind us that biology studies things that only appear to be designed, but that in fact are not designed? Why couldn?t biology study things that are designed?
Taken from:
This Link
Again what I am seeking from the group is what are the "tests" that provide the framework for what indeed is needed to be a "scientific theory"
Not opinion based on bias but indeed neutral rules that define what a "scientific theory is and is not.
Thank you,
Fellowship
Originally posted by xenu
Creationism fails all the tests for a scientific theory. Evolution passes them.
Evolution has testable repeatable results?
Evolution is a half-baked generalization that has NO FREAKING IDEA how rocks turned into human beings---there are no models that work, the complexity of life, symbiosis and ecosystems in general preclude such things.
By definition you cannot explain what you don't truly understand---and "science" isn't there yet.
I'm sorry this thread isn't a rerun of Nova, but we just can't make unsubstantiated statements based on wishful thinking shined on by an delusional opinion of science.
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a miracle.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What tests?
I want to know what tests you refer to. I agree with you I am not interested in personal opinion. I want to know what the tests are to determine what would qualify to indeed be a "scientific theory"
Read my post with your eyes open next time.
The tests ...
1. Evidence exists (yes/no).
2. Models and theories have been proposed (yes/no).
3. Models and theories are consistent given the evidence (yes/no).
4. Models make predictions/assumptions (yes/no).
5. Predictions agree with the evidence (yes/no)
6. More evidence is found (yes/no).
7. Model still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
8. Predictions still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
and so on in a circular fashion.
Add some statistical measures in there if you want.
You don't need to start at the first test, you can start with a theory and model - which is why you can have a creationist theory.
Unfortuantely creationism fails all the other tests.
Evolution does not.
Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not.
This is not a personal opinion.
You posted an opinion in your last reply:
Nope, wrong again.
Again what I am seeking from the group is what are the "tests" that provide the framework for what indeed is needed to be a "scientific theory"
Not opinion based on bias but indeed neutral rules that define what a "scientific theory is and is not.
Thank you,
Fellowship
Already been answered.
You simply don't like the answer, and like the author of the essay, you want the "tests" to be modified so creationism can be classified a scientific theory.
Originally posted by ena
Evolution has testable repeatable results?
Yes.
Evolution is a half-baked generalization that has NO FREAKING IDEA how rocks turned into human beings---there are no models that work, the complexity of life, symbiosis and ecosystems in general preclude such things.
You have no idea what evolution is about.
You already know it has nothing to do with how rocks turned into humans.
You are simply being dishonest.
By definition you cannot explain what you don't truly understand---and "science" isn't there yet.
True, I have no idea how you are able to put more than two words together.
I doubt the greatest medical minds will ever figure that out.
Originally posted by xenu
Yes.
You have no idea what evolution is about.
You already know it has nothing to do with how rocks turned into humans.
You are simply being dishonest.
True, I have no idea how you are able to put more than two words together.
I doubt the greatest medical minds will ever figure that out.
This isn't a game for the simpleminded or ignorant----surely you can do better than that!
Let me give you some advice:
Don't go where you can't fight your way out. Go back to your epsidodes of Nova and the lizard chicken issuse of National Geographic. Grow up, study the science and the philosophy of what you claim and get back to those who have.
"Is too! Is too!" answers just don't make muster.
Really, you're going to give pluralists a bad reputation.
Originally posted by xenu
The tests ...
1. Evidence exists (yes/no).
2. Models and theories have been proposed (yes/no).
3. Models and theories are consistent given the evidence (yes/no).
4. Models make predictions/assumptions (yes/no).
5. Predictions agree with the evidence (yes/no)
6. More evidence is found (yes/no).
7. Model still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
8. Predictions still consistent with the new evidence (yes/no).
and so on in a circular fashion.
6 and 7:
Does Evolution hold up?
Link 01
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Taken from Link 02 I would copy and paste the quotes but they are too numerous.
The second conflict between Darwinism and natural history is the phenomenon of stasis (stability, non-evolution). Geology reveals the stability of forms rather than their gradual transformation into substantially different body plans. The stability of the higher taxa in particular suggests the existence of natural processes which prevent major evolutionary change from occurring in a gradual step-by-step basis
Taken from Link 03
Link 04
Link 05
Link 06
I was curious....
Fellowship
Originally posted by ena
This isn't a game for the simpleminded or ignorant----surely you can do better than that!
But I thought you were playing a game.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
6 and 7:
Does Evolution hold up?
Link 01
Yes.
Just because we haven't quantised gravity, doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist, or that quantum gravity isn't a scientific theory.
No one has ever seen a quark. That doesn't mean we should throw away quantum chromodynamics, or that it's not a scientific theory.
But of course, in your words, this isn't about evolution or creation, but about weather either is a scientific theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creation is not.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Must a scientific theory be testable?
Yes... but that doesn't mean what many anti-evolutionists try to conveniently make it mean -- that the only way to test the theory of evolution would be to recreate evolution in a lab experiment. There are many ways to test theories and build evidence even when the Big Picture is difficult or impossible to test directly.
Must a scientific theory be exclusively naturalistic?
I wouldn't say it's an absolute requirement, but it is hard to imagine a supernaturalistic theory being held to be superior to a naturalist theory for at least a couple of of reasons.
(1) Occam's Razor: Supernatural explanations typically "multiply entities" -- that is, they add complication without adding explanatory power.
"Intelligent Design" purports to address the issue of "irreducible complexity", for example, but all it does is introduce an extra entity -- a Designer or a God -- as a pre-existing source of complexity.
Where does the Designer's complexity come from, if there was no one around to design the Designer? Assume he's spontaneously or inately capable of complexity? If so, then why not skip the Designer part of the explanation and assume that, if something has to be capable of spontaneous complexity that the physical universe itself is that thing?
Show me a supernatural explanation that does not needlessly create new entities, that actually answers a question rather than moving the same question elsewhere and renaming it, and you'll have shown me a supernatural explanation that stands a chance at being better scientifically than a natural one.
(2) The fruits of naturalistic theory: At one time, practically everything in the world was explained supernaturally. The sun rising and setting. The winds blowing. The rain falling. Unwillingness to be satisfied with simply saying that these things happen because spirits or gods make them happen -- "explanations" that really do no explaining whatsoever -- has led to greatly increased knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.
Given this history, I'd say it's reasonable that science looks unfavorably on supernatural explanations. They are typically nothing more than ways to dress up saying "I don't know", but make your ignorance sound more grand.
I invite you to read the following and weigh in with your thoughts.
Thoughts over Scientific Theory
The best I can say is that Mr. Moreland has a very eloquent and erudite way of completely missing some obvious distinctions between supernatural and natural explanations.
From Moreland's text:
All modern science, not just biological evolutionary theory, by definition excludes God. . . . There is no rule book that spells this out, and indeed it has been argued that it is an arbitrary restriction.
Simply reread what I've already written in this post... there's nothing at all arbitrary about science's general devaluation of supernatural explanations. If we're going to use vague passive voice claims, I can truthfully claim that "indeed it has been argued that" thunder is caused by the wrath of Thor. Truthful as that may be, it says nothing about the meteorological expertise of those who did said arguing.
I'm going to repeat a challenge to you, FCiB, to which you have yet to rise: Without just pointing to a link or quoting someone else, tell us, in your own words what you think does and does not consitute scientific evidence, and how the explanatory value of theories should be weighed. I'd especially appreciate it if you searched back to my post in another thread where I drew an analogy with a murder investigation.
Originally posted by xenu
Just because we haven't quantised gravity, doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist, or that quantum gravity isn't a scientific theory.
No one has ever seen a quark. That doesn't mean we should throw away quantum chromodynamics, or that it's not a scientific theory.
Wow you make the point of the link I provided in the opening of this thread. Have you even read it? The author clearly uses logic as you say above to demonstrate that indeed Science will allow concepts to be enough for theory. I for one have no issue at all with this. The question then becomes if "Science" is welcome to such conceptual (without concrete proof or evidence) ideas to be part of a theory why then is the concept of ID not allowed this luxury?
In case you did not read the link I provided in the opening of this thread here is a little quote:
Yet as is now well known, positivism soon self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, molecules, quarks and universal laws.
another snip:
With the death of positivism in the 1950s, demarcationists took a different tack. Other semantic criteria emerged, such as Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions.
Newtonian mechanics, for example, assumed as its core three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. On the basis of these, Newton made a number of predictions about the positions of planets in the solar system. When observations failed to corroborate some of his predictions, he did not reject his core assumptions. Instead, he scrutinized some of his auxiliary hypotheses to explain the discrepancies between theory and observation. For example, he examined his working assumption that planets were perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force. As Imre Lakatos has shown, Newton's refusal to repudiate his core in the face of anomalies enabled him to refine his theory and eventually led to its tremendous success. Newton's refusal to accept putatively falsifying results certainly did not call into question the scientific status of his gravitational theory or his three laws.
The function of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific testing suggests that many scientific theories, including those in so-called hard sciences, may be very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify conclusively. Yet many theories that have been falsified in practice via the consensus judgment of the scientific community must qualify as scientific according to the falsifiability criterion. Since they have been falsified, they are obviously falsifiable, and since they are falsifiable, they would seem to be scientific.
And so it has gone generally with demarcation criteria. Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science. Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science. As a result, with few exceptions most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question "What methods distinguish science from nonscience?" as both intractable and uninteresting. What, after all, is in a name? Certainly not automatic epistemic warrant or authority. Thus philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific but whether it is true or warranted by the evidence. Thus, as Martin Eger has summarized, "demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."
Fellowship