Toto

This is the key point. You construct your theory or your model using all the evidence available to you. The test of the theory is when you apply it to new evidence that you did not use in constructing the theory. This is a test of whether your theory was just an ad hoc construction that covered what you knew at the time, or whether you really have some insight into an underlying structure or force.

See above.

I don't know why this is so unclear to you. I think you are outside of your area of training, which is ok - this is not a board for certified experts. But sometimes I think you missed something vital. :huh:

ApostateAbe

Toto, are you saying that, if the Archaeopteryx were discovered before Darwin's theory, then it really wouldn't lend any more weight to the probability of Darwin's theory? If not, then what methodology do you apply to claim that such evidence gives Darwin's theory greater weight? I would like to stick with this point, because it is a methodological point fundamental to the ways that you and I think.

To go to a non-hypothetical example, what about the pieces of evidence that Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands, such as the naturally-selected variations in the finches' beaks? That evidence was observed before the theory. If you think such evidence does count for the theory, then what methodology would you apply to make that decision, if not by "explanatory power"?

Toto

That is evidence for the theory. If you have a lot of evidence, you can talk about explanatory power, but if you used the evidence to construct the theory, you can't talk about predictive power using the same evidence.

I don't know how else to put it.

ApostateAbe

OK, so you don't have any specific methodology, and here is the problem: I am a creationist, and I can explain the evidence, too. The geographical distribution of finches' beaks are no anomaly. After the flood, God guided each species of finch to each of those islands, according to each environment suitable for each species of finch. Therefore, my explanation for this evidence is equal to yours. QED. Why is your explanation for the evidence better than mine?

Edit: Maybe "less ad hoc" or "plausibility" would be the reason why my explanation is worse. How about moving back to the hypothetical of the Archaeopteryx discovered before Darwin's theory? That is no anomaly to me. God simply created the Archaeopteryx just like he created all the other birds, and this particular bird species happened to have some things in common with dinosaurs. Why is your explanation for this evidence better than mine?

Toto

Egads.

If you posit that god is an omnipotent and bizarre micromanager, you can explain anything. But theologians have rejected this sort of god, and bacterial evolution indicates that this god is rather perverse since he keeps creating new bugs to keep us sick and defeat the efforts of atheistic scientists to devise antibiotics.

I would call this the ultimate ad hoc explanation.

But it is sort of like the historical Jesus scholars who explain the many points of correspondence between the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels as Jesus actively incorporating those elements into the drama that he staged that ended in his crucifixion. They reject the simpler and more naturalistic explanation that the gospel authors based their story on the Hebrew scriptures, creatively interpreted.

ApostateAbe

"The ultimate ad hoc explanation" is a good way to put it. Must it be all about ad hoc or plausibility, though? Let's add a little more to the thought experiment. Suppose we really did have evidence for the existence of God--all sorts of gods, actually--and they really do have the ability to create complex forms of life. We see those things day to day. So, now creationism can be both a plausible explanation and a non-ad-hoc explanation for the existence of the Archaeopteryx fossil.

"I know it is precisely what the theory of evolution expects, but there is no reason that the gods couldn't have created the bird that way. So, our two explanations are equal."

I propose that we use the principle of explanatory power--the principle that the explanation narrowly expects the evidence. What would be your thought on that?

hjalti

Right.

Mark was embarassed by the baptism because:

1. In it John the Baptist gives Jesus extraordinary praise.
2. In it god speaks from heaven and says that he loves Jesus.

Doesn't seem logical to me.

Juststeve

There is nothing ad hoc about the theory that the world is as it is because an all powerful God created it and sustains it this way. That theory may be wrong, but it is not ad hoc.

The theist point of view becomes ad hoc when in an effort to absolve their God from full responsibility for the way the world is they offer excuses and explanations and exceptions to the theory whenever they don’t feel comfortable with God being responsible for the world. God isn’t responsible for the Shoah because that was caused by the evil of particular men with free will. God isn’t responsible for cancer and birth defects because Adam and Eve caused the world to fall through their sin. These are ad hoc modifications to an otherwise coherent albeit mistaken theory, the world is the way it is because God made it so.

Steve

aa5874

Absolute nonsense. Any "theory" not based on credible DATA or a "theory" based on unsubstantiated BELIEF is AD HOC and should be REJECTED INSTANTLY.

This is the 21st century.

There is absolutely NO basis to claim there is ONE GOD, TWO gods or an INFINITE quantity of Gods.

We are just going to COLLECT MORE DATA and develop more THEORIES and forget about people who BELIEVE they KNOW how the world came into existence WITHOUT a single shred of DATA just their AD HOC imagination..

Toto

This sounds like a version of Ockham's Razor.

We seem to have wandered from the OP. Let's back up.

You proposed that the best explanation for a supernatural story about Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, after which the heavans opened and God announced that Jesus was his son - was that John actually baptized Jesus.

The alternative explanation is that the theologian who wrote the gospel of Mark, several generations after this allegedly happened, created this fictional scene for a theological reason, possibly involving references to Elijah and Elisha and the forerunner to the messiah from the Hebrew scriptures. Later theologians reshaped this scene as their theology changed.

So why exactly is your explanation more likely?