Mageth

That is why there are adjustments made when aspects of the theory prove untenable, rather than a rejection of the theory.

Actually, that's because the theory as a whole is still tenable, and is always adjustable. To reject the theory, an alternative theory that better fits the evidence must be proposed. Hint: creationism is not such a theory.

theophilus

Only if all things have a naturalistic explanaiton. The "accepting" does not have to be, and cannot be, naturalistically understood. This is a spirritual consideration which goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

The same is true of your presupposition. You do not arrive at your presuppositon by cognitive processes. You assume, without being aware of the process, that you are self-sufficient to discover truth.

Your final statement, even if it were true, wouldn't help you. It would just mean that knowledge is impossible for both of us. But you don't believe that, so how do you explain your knowledge?

I've answered your questions, how about answering mine.

Shadowy Man

You are correct that creationism is a hypothesis. It is not a theory.

Other than saying that there is a hypothesis that an intelligent agent (of some indeterminate form) caused some action that resulted in the creation of the universe, what else is there to say?

Can you use this hypothesis to make any predictions about how the universe works?

Philosoft

Actually, I thought that was precisely the time to use the word "seriously."

Well, clearly you have a pet notion of the atheist picture of "creation science" and you're going to respond to that instead of what I actually wrote.

No. That's why I didn't say anything remotely like that in my post.

Does this not require the ability to scientifically distinguish created life from non-created life? When did we acquire this ability?

This is the God of the bible, yes?

Evolutionary theory is rather complex. So much so, that your attempt to conflate problems with particular theories and evolutionary theory as a whole is laughable. If the adjustments agree with observation, and render the theory tenable again, what, exactly, is the problem?
Okay. Let us know as soon as you folks pin down which "creation hypothesis" should be taught.

theophilus

The theory of evolution is held to be "tenable" only because it offers a possible naturalistic (read anti-theistic) explanation of origins. The theory was not arrived at as the only reasonable explanation for the evidence; indeed much of the "evidence" did not exist when the Greeks first came up with the idea.

Darwin's theory assumed evolution (it did not prove it) and was an attempt to define the evolutionary mechanism.

There is no "evidence" for evolution. There are data, fossils, etc., which are placed (often against evidence) in an evolutionary scheme.

There is a display at the Smithsonian that shows two distinct species of current animals and the placard explains that they came from (I'm not kidding) an "unknown common ancestor." That's the quality of evolutionary science. You draw a conclusion and then fabricate evidence to justify it.

Real science would follow the develpment and divergence of various species and, if one species split into two, would accept a connection. In other words, it would begin at the beginning and trace the development. Evolutionary science begins at the present, makes certain assumptions about the origin of life and then forces all data to fit that model. If the data will not accommodate itself to the theory, we just create and "unknown common ancestor" based on the belief (faith) that we'll find it eventually, since our theory must be true.

As I said, evolution is a religious committment, not a scientific necessity. That's why the history of evolution is filled with frauds.

Philosoft

[mod hat]
Ok, gang. This thread looks like it is leaving the purview of "Existence of God." Let's take the evolutionary debate over to the proper forum if we want to continue - this includes myself, the poster.
[/mod hat]

~Philosoft, EoG mod

Mageth

Only if all things have a naturalistic explanaiton. The "accepting" does not have to be, and cannot be, naturalistically understood. This is a spirritual consideration which goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

This doesn't help you much, IMO. Now you have to presuppose the "spirtitual" or non-naturalistic explanations to presuppose the "authoritative communication". You seem to have just moved back one step. On what basis do you accept the "spiritual" or non-naturalistic explanations? Somewhere at the endless chain of your presuppositions, cognition must lie.

Thank gog for Occam's Razor.

The same is true of your presupposition. You do not arrive at your presuppositon by cognitive processes. You assume, without being aware of the process, that you are self-sufficient to discover truth.

To be honest, I don't seek "Truth". The most I hope for is sufficient understanding to get by and perhaps have a little fun in the process.

Further, I evaluated the "spiritual" explanation for a long time before cognitively rejecting it. I started out with the same presuppositions as you (learned them from my parents, actually; I didn't get spiritually "zapped" or anything). I'm quite aware of the cognitive process by which I reached my current state; my final "shave" was a mere two years ago or so.

Your final statement, even if it were true, wouldn't help you. It would just mean that knowledge is impossible for both of us. But you don't believe that, so how do you explain your knowledge?

I'm not claiming it helps me, merely illustrating that, if what you say is true, we're both in the same boat, as both are limited by our intellect in the same fashion (spiritual claims notwithstanding). If so, anything beyond the natural, that which we can understand through the Scientific method, is superfluous, unnecessary, useless really. Shave away; I did, and now I feel much more intellectually "smooth."

I've answered your questions, how about answering mine.

I have; if what you claim applies to me, then it applies to you. Personally, I have no problem with the shortcomings of our intellects that allow us to only model reality to a certain degree of probability. I accept the limitation, and don't claim we can have absolute "knowledge".

However, the scientific method has proved very useful in all sorts of human endeavors; medicine, space exploration, technology, the list goes on and on. Last I checked, religion really hasn't produced much truly useful. Neither prayer nor the bible got us to the moon, discovered penicillin, or allowed us to conduct an on-line debate. And creationism doesn't explain what we see in nature.

theophilus

I only have the notion that those who subscribe to evolutionary science, who dominate the field of "science" are opposed to even the examination of a creation hypothesis which can only be explained as a religious committment.

I don't even support Creation science because it grants man intellectual authority over what is possible and what is not.

No. That's why I didn't say anything remotely like that in my post.

Does this not require the ability to scientifically distinguish created life from non-created life? When did we acquire this ability?

Well, that's a problem for both camps, isn't it?
No, it only requires that we state a creation hypothesis, i.e., terrestrial life shows evidence of design which can best be explained by a special creative event." Then the data are examined, and the hypothesis is either confimed, adjusted or abandoned.

That seems fair and reasonable.

This is the God of the bible, yes?

Yes.

Evolutionary theory is rather complex. So much so, that your attempt to conflate problems with particular theories and evolutionary theory as a whole is laughable. If the adjustments agree with observation, and render the theory tenable again, what, exactly, is the problem?

The problem is, there are no observations. Evolution, by its very nature cannot be observed. All that can be done is to examine extant remains to see if they suggest that evolution occurred. This is not what happens. A fossil is found and it is "assigned" an evolutionary significance. See my other post regarding the "unknown common ancestor."

When it became evident that the fossil record did not support the kind of gradual, long term modificaiton required by Darwin, Gould simply provided another explanation, Puntuated Equlibrium. Why? Because of an absolute committment to a naturalistic explanation to the origin and development of life, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Okay. Let us know as soon as you folks pin down which "creation hypothesis" should be taught.

The creation hypothesis, as I have outlined it above, would be acceptable to most advocates. People like ICR.

[edited to fix formatting as best I could - Philo]

Koyaanisqatsi

I just have to jump in on this one (and, as always, pardon my dyslexia, as it's late and I probably won't have time to spell check everything before the 120 minute deadline).

Ok, let's deconstuct. We'll start with the first part: "Terrestial life shows evidence of design."

By using the word "design," you automatically imply a designer. Granted you've gone to extremes to distance "designer" from "God," and I applaud you for that, but the terms you are using are instantly fallacious because of such an implication.

You are merely asserting this "design;" assuming it is true based upon your interpretation of things, so how do you propose to support, let alone teach such an hypothesis and to what end?

How does one teach an hypothesis? Well, the first thing one would need to do is support how it can be justified to use the word "design" and its implication (designer), so you'd have to establish in some fashion what this design is at the same time you establish the nature of the designer, yes? They go hand in hand.

Or, at the very least, you'd have to give your students the tools to answer all of those questions, yes? That is, after all, the purpose of the scientific method; to provide cognitive and experimental tools to test an hypothesis or theory. What tools do you propose to provide them in order to test your hypothesis?

If you seek to establish that the alleged designer is merely a "higher intelligence," for example, then you'd have to define what this "higher intelligence" is and where this "higher intelligence" exists and why this "higher intelligence" has designed it and, most importantly, how this "higher intelligence" designed it and support with evidence the whole damn shooting match, yes?

Since you have sought to distance yourself from "God" necessarily in your hypothesis, then precisely what are you positing? Well, it would have to be a being that has some sort of vested interest in designing us (and, presumably, the whole universe), yes? Design implies purpose to some degree. What would that be?

Why, for example, did they design dinosaurs? As a first step in designing mankind? Or, arachnids? Or any of the other trillions of species? Or did they just design the first amino acids?

I mean, you'd still have to reconcile everything with what is currently known, yes? I don't just mean theorized, I mean what is known, about DNA and mitosis and asexual reproduction and why some animals use infrared and others use sonar, etc., etc., etc.

As I mentioned previously, inherent in the word "design" is purpose, so you'd also have to explain the purpose in designing extinct species and mutations and flaws in those mutations and disease and blah, blah, blah.

You can't just stop at interpreting everything you see as "designed," you'd also have to go into the details of that design and the inherent purpose behind the supposition of a designer, yes?

You'd also have to explain how this design continues, such as the emergence of homo sapiens. Why did these creatures finally decide to design humanity after billions of years without it?

Or, again, are you merely positing that there was the initial design of DNA, for example, injected somehow into a self-replicating bit of proto-plasm billions of years ago and left to unfold, in which case the real argument is not about evolution, since evolution would unfold from the same event; only in your version, it would be through the deliberate introduction of a self-replicating organism with the "blueprints" for billions of years of evolution contained within it, instead of a natural emergence as evolution theory has it.

But then you merely beg the question, who designed the designers? Where did they come from and, again, why did they do such a thing? An experiment? A seeding colony?

Which leads to the second part of your hypothesis: "which can best be explained by a special creative event."

Is that what you're going for then? These alleged creatures (whatever they are and from wherever they came from) simply injected, somehow, "life" into otherwise inert proto-plasm in the hopes of starting a select planet in a select solar system on a billion year's journey toward...what? Modern society? No, it couldn't be, since our society, like so many before us, will also be destroyed and dissappear in the same way the dinosaurs did.

So, to what end was this all "designed?" What was the purpose of designing scorpions and the dodo bird and deep sea luminescent creatures and on and on and on (and I haven't even gotten to matter, mind you, and the grander sense of creation of the entire universe)?

Since you're positing this as a science class topic, it must still follow the scientific method, presumably, or it would be taught in, I don't know, Sunday School (aka, Church), so what is the scientific method you intend to egender your students with to figure out the purpose of all of this intelligent design?

That we, perhaps, worship these alleged designers? Or are you going to say to your students when they ask this inevitable question, "We can't know the minds or reasons why these creatures decided to design us, it is only important to consider that we might all be deliberately designed by such creatures?"

How is that in any way a scientific answer to the most obvious question and what evidence would you present to support it? At least with evolution theory there is evidence to support it, but what do you have?

Nothing more than begging the question, ultimately. Who are the designers and what do they want and why did they create us and where do they exist?

How do you propose to keep it scientific; i.e., the purpose of a science class? What methods do you propose your students employ to answer a question that is inherently unanswerable through the scientific method?

You keep raising the point of at least providing an "alternative hypothesis," but to what end? Your "alternative hypothesis," by its very nature, cannot ever be proved and no evidence can be presented in support of it, since it rests entirely, ultimately, on the "we can't know why or who or how or even what," so what is the point of raising it? So that students of science do not follow the logic and reasoning of applied scientific methods to determine the "why, who, how and what" of existence?

At best, the most you could hope for is that your students barrage you with all of these questions, to which your only answer could be, "Well, just think about it, because we can't ever know anything for sure."

Considering that caveat is already employed and inherent within the scientific method, which is why it was concocted in the first place, what more have you done in your hypothetical classroom but served to undermine the very science you are pretending to represent with your hypothesis?

Or is that the motive? To undermine the very structure of what you pretend to employ?

Now, finally, to address the hidden barb in your hypothesis, the "best way to explain" qualificatoin. How could you possibly justify that in light of all of these questions that will necessarily go unanswered as part and parcel to your hypothesis? The "best" way to explain something is with evidence and reason and applied methods, yet you can offer none of these to your students. The best you can offer is, "It's a possibility that raises more questions than it answers, but think about it and don't just do what you don't already do, which is to blindly accept as true something you're told by your teacher."

Some science class! I wish I had such a teacher. I would have gotten straight 'A's' by simply stating on every test, "We can't ever know absolutely anything at all and everything might be the result of magical, invisible pixies that existed ex nihilo for no discernable reason."

You're the one suggesting this be taught in science class, so kindly demonstrate how it belongs in a science class?

I can just see the first day of class (which would also, necessarily be the last day of class):

HRG

And what establishes its authority ? Authorities cannot be self-validating.

Same objection to your alleged authority - how does it validate itself ?
Since you cannot exclude that your God - out of inscrutable motivations - is lying to you, by your own criteria knowledge is impossible. Presuppositionalism thus ends in nihilism.

What follows from this discussion is that 100% knowledge is only possible within formal systems. "There are infinitely many primes" is an example of such knowledge; "you can force mate with rook and king versus rook" is another.

However, knowledge about the external world beyond a reasonable doubt is quite possible and consistent without postulating an unevidenced and truthful entity.

Regards,
HRG