John Galt, Jr.

Let the 'Special Creation' hypothesis be

SP: The various species that have existed on Earth have been generated by acts of special creation by non-human intelligence.

Let the 'Evolution' hypothesis be

E: The various species that have existed on Earth have been generated by non-intelligent forces-- mutation, natural selection, etc.

These are subject to modification if/as this discussion progesses, but these will start things off.

Thinking now in terms of hypothesis confirmation (as this notion is presented and elaborated in Philosophy of Science contexts) what is the empirical evidence/data that supports hypothesis E over hypothesis SP?

John Galt, Jr.

Vorkosigan

Mr. Galt,

A good start would be to get a standard text, such as Fukuyama's, and pore over it. A topic of this size is too large. Do you have specific questions? After all, the evidence for evolution consists of the findings of the last 500 years of Western science.

To put it succintly, the evidence for evolution consists of (1) evidence for common descent, shown before Darwin; (2) the evidence for, and observation of, selection processes and genetic permutation, occurring both in the lab and in the field.

Vorkosigan

copernicus

That's easy. Everyone accepts some form of E, even those who promote SP. So E is no longer just a hypothesis. It is accepted as a scientific theory that is consistent with observed data. SP, on the other hand, is an extra assumption about the origin of biological species. Since there is no compelling evidence for it, it is not really a scientific theory. Just a hypothesis looking for some evidence.

Tim Thompson

I don't think the question is posed well enough to attempt a conclusive answer, primarily due to the weakness of the statement of hypothesis SP. It is important to know something about the mechanics of the special creation. For instance, does it happen by virtue of a parent giving birth to a creature of radically different form, a "natural birth" of the new species mitigated by devine (or "intelligent") intervention? Does it happen by direct miraculous intervention, the literal appearance of a whole live creature "poofed" right out of thin air?

It makes a difference, because the former description could feasibly leave behind natural evidence, that the latter process would not. Furthermore, the former process might conceivably be explained naturally by some mutagenic process, even if it is bizarre, while the latter could hardly be explained "naturally".

Better to say for now, perhaps, that the evidence we do have is compatible with hypothesis E, but may or may not be compatible with hypothesis SP, depending on the details.

But there is something else not usually remarked upon, but of profound importance. that is the observation that mathematics works with extraordinary fidelity as a descriptor of the behavior of the universe in all cases. This implies that the universe behaves in a predictable manner. Even if we allow for chaos, quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, the universe is still predictable, even if the prediction is statistical. But the sudden "poof" version of hypothesis SP would imply unpredictability in an otherwise predictable universe, and so seems less valuable.

Oolon Colluphid

To jump in before anyone else mentions it ...

Evolution meaning 'shared common ancestry of all living things' is a FACT.

Evolutionary theory is (as with any scientific theory) the bundled set of hypotheses -- some very well confirmed, some quite well confirmed, and some more speculative -- which together EXPLAIN the fact of evolution.

Oolon

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Boro Nut

Do you mean in the sense that the moon orbits the earth is a fact, and that the Newtonian laws explaining how it orbits is a theory? I'm sorry, but as a YEC I don't understand this at all. Could you run it past me again?

Boro Nut

Clutch

J.G. Jr,

How about starting with this? Explain what possible empirical data ought to be considered probability-lowering with respect to SP. Please include the principled grounds for categorizing such outcomes in that way.

thanks!

John Galt, Jr.

I thought my original question was clearer than it is, apparently.

I am asking for the empirical data/evidence that confirms the evolutionary story over the alternative non-evolutionary story with respect to the actual history of the development of the various species on this planet.

Perhaps it will make things more manageable if the alternative hypothesis that is proposed is one that is a bit more obviously natural than the SP hypothesis that I first proposed. I am not a defender of creationism, as the notion is normally understood in its battle with science.

Let the alternative hypothesis (about our history) be that the various species that we have discovered have been placed here by non-human visitors over the course of the Earth's history.

I assume that the fossil record (to be understood as whatever actual 'pieces of the past' we have come across) does not, in itself, discriminate between the 'non-human' explanation and the 'evolution' explanation. Either one of these two hypotheses will explain how the various species actually came to be here.

On analogy (to borrow an example that appeared in a discussion in another discussion in another forum), there are many trees in my yard. There are different explanations that can account for the presence of those trees-- the saplings that were these trees when the developers cleared the land were left there and the trees grew, or , after the land had been cleared and the houses built, the saplings were placed there by landscapers. Two different histories, two different explanations, and the trees, themselves, don't support one hypothesis over the other. Of course, if there is some historical record of what landscaping was done and what wasn't, then I can find out. If there is no such record then it may very well be impossible for me to find out.

My question is, what is it in the 'pieces of the past' in themselves-- the data-- that we come across that favors natural selection over non-natural selection.

From what I remember about the logic of confirmation in philosophy of science texts, the mere fact that the data confirm the evolutionary explanation shows nothing about the plausibility or implausibility of the 'non-human' explanation.

What could show that the 'non-human' explanation is not true? Well, the same sort of thing that could resolve the question about the trees in my yard-- some historical documentation of some kind would do the job.

My own inclination is to think that it is very, very silly to maintain that as a previous poster has done. Very little, if any, history, that isn't documented permits claims with such epistemic force.

So, once again, what is the data that supports the evolutionary story over the alternative.

John Galt. Jr.

Philosoft

Special Creation doesn't explain anything. It makes an a priori assumption that there is a mechanism by which creation can occur without a shred of evidence, theory or even discussion about what that mechanism might be. In other words, SC is an assumption that itself assumes the validity of a mechanism that hasn't been defined. Cute.

John Galt, Jr.

I am not sure I understand the complaint here.
The Special Creation hypothesis (as it was presented above) is different from the evolutionary explanation with respect to the 'competitive environment-natural selection-random mutation,...' aspect of evolutionary explanations. The 'local' physiology of various species is not addressed. The difference is in what 'tweaks' the relevant physiological points in the living organisms.

Having said that, if you think your complaint still stands, I don't understand it.

John Galt, Jr.