Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Captain Scarlet]

Captain,

Please give an example of a prediction that evolution (common descent) has made in the fields of medical research and agricultural research that could not also have been predicted just as well by supernatural creation by a God who initially created various "kinds" and who built into the DNA of those "kinds" the potential for the evolution (change) of those original "kinds".

Hi rjh4.

There aren't any examples (at least that I'm aware of). Why should there be as we are talking about the practical application of the same thing? In the version of supernatural creation you've outlined it seems (and I may have this wrong?) to replace just abiogenesis, and not abiogenesis and evolution or just evolution. If one excludes the starting point (either abiogenesis or supernatural creation) both mechanisms are identical ie evolution (by means of natural selection). I would take issue with a YEC interpretation however because evolution takes time. There is poor evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence at all for supernatural creation. I am therefore open to the question on how life got strated, no-one knows that - yet. But I guess we can all agree that the best chance we have of finding out is through scientific inquiry.

If we switch to a full creationist agenda based around ID, YEC etc which denied evolution, then there would be a difference. You have no application or predictive power in this model as it would state all things come into existence fully formed and do not change through time. Presumabley the only way to better adapt to your environment, systematically improve crop yields, study bacterial mutation rates and then develop countermeasures would be to...I guess just pray!

[theVOID]

Long time no see Rjh4! Where have you been hiding?

It has been a while. I have been following some of these threads a bit, I just don't post as often as I used to.

As for my argument:

1. Methodical naturalism is the foundation of science.
2. Science has discovered more truth claims and applications there of than any other methodology, Therefore:
3. Methodological naturalism is the most effective methodology for determining truth and obtaining application thereof.

Keep in mind: Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism nor is it the only method that can arrive at truth claims. Reliablism, for instance, can arrive at true claim, so can Introspection (A priori truths) and others. There were also true claims being made prior to the advent of science. My argument is that it is the most effective methodology (by a *** huge margin) and it's even when time is taken out of account.

While one might be able to argue the truthfulness of premise 2 (depending on how one counts "truth claims"), I won't as I think the argument is pretty good over all. I misunderstood and thought you were saying that methodological naturalism is the only method to arrive at truth claims as I do not think I have read any previous posts by you saying you thought there are other valid ways of arriving at a true claim. (You may have said it before here, and if you did, I missed it. Or I did read it before and forgot.) Anyway, kudos to you on your argument.

Thanks You shouldn't run into any posts of me saying that.

A truth claim is a proposition that is stated as fact. Determining whether or not the statement is fact through investigation, or finding statements of fact through observation is what methodological naturalism does and it is through those criteria that it has amassed so many true claims about reality.

So you accept the premise is true?

Methodological naturalism is not an epistemology, as I just noticed I said earlier.

Yeah, that thought also crossed my mind last night and I thought about mentioning it today. No need now.

K.

...it was late and I was drunk/stoned.

Why do you get drunk/stoned, Void? I know it is a more personal question and if you want to ignore it, that is fine and I won't press it. I was just wondering.

Because I like beer and weed?

I'd been drinking with a mate for a few hours, had a few sessions, then came back and had a few more beers and sessions and did some stoned philosophy

That's one of the biggest reasons I like weed, I can continue to think about anything that I would be able to with seemingly no impediment and not often with markedly different conclusions (I blame the beers for my gaff above ).

I'll admit I sometimes forget what I was about to do when I'm stoned, but that's fairly rare, in any case it's minuscule relative to the effects of other things as 'acceptable' as pain medication or alcohol or even a bad diet.

I suppose you have some opinion?

Methodological naturalism is a method for determining truth that makes an assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but you do not necessarily have to be a metaphysical naturalist to use the epistemology though most are (Scientist theists who actually do science work with the assumption of methodological naturalism).

In principle, I disagree here. I do not think methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism. I do think it requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and so we can discover through methodological naturalism how nature works. But it never requires one to assume that nature is the only reality (metaphysical naturalism). However, in practice,

That is not true, methodological naturalism deliberately narrows down the scope of investigation to natural causes, that assumption is at the foundations of repeatability, testability, falsifiability etc. Non-natural claims are none of the above.

I'm not sure how one would distinguish my position from yours, except possibly in the mindset of the scientist doing the work.

What position are you talking about here?

[rjh4 is back]

Hi rjh4.

There aren't any examples (at least that I'm aware of). Why should there be as we are talking about the practical application of the same thing? In the version of supernatural creation you've outlined it replaces just abiogenesis, and not abiogenesis and evolution or just evolution. If one excludes the starting point (either abiogenesis or supernatural creation) both mechanisms are identical ie evolution (by means of natural selection).

Thanks for the candid response, Captain. I agree with you.

I would take issue with a YEC interpretation however because evolution takes time.

I can understand what you are saying here. However, I think that it is evolution (common descent) that requires a lot of time, not evolution (change, say within a "kind").

There is poor evidence for abiogenesis...

I agree.

...and no evidence at all for supernatural creation.

Certainly, if one takes the position that science excludes supernatural by definition, then there could not be scientific evidence for supernatural creation.

I am therefore open to the question on how life got strated, no-one knows that - yet. But I guess we can all agree that the best chance we have of finding out is through scientific inquiry.

I am glad you are still open to the question on how life got started. Keep in mind, though, that if life did really come about by supernatural creation and you limit yourself to scientific inquiry that excludes supernatural by definition, then there would not even be a possibility of you discovering how life really came about.

If we switch to a full creationist agenda based around ID, YEC etc which denied evolution, then there would be a difference. You have no application or predictive power in this model as it would state all things come into existence fully formed and do not change through time. Presumabley the only way to better adapt to your environment, improve crop yields, study bacterial mutation rates and develop countermeasures would be to...I guess just pray!

Here, I think you are applying a strawman argument. (Note, I am not saying that you are intentionally doing so. I am just saying that you may not fully understand the position taken in ID or YEC.) I personally do not know anyone who takes an ID or YEC position that would agree with the statement that "all things come into existence fully formed and do not change through time". I'm guessing that Statler Waldorf would not even agree with this (but he can speak for himself). I consider myself a YEC but I don't agree with this. I take a position as outlined in my last post. Thus, I think we would not disagree on much relative to operational science and the value thereof in making advances in medicine, agriculture, and a host of other areas.

[Thor]

This just demonstrates your youthful idealism concering the infallibility of scientists.

Have you ever had a tetanus shot? If so, I guess that demonstrates your idealism concerning the infallibility of scientists. Same goes if you have ever taken an aspirin. Or flown in a plane.

I do not believe scientists are infallible. They can get things wrong. And it is OTHER SCIENTISTS who expose bad science. So, I'll throw my lot in with the 99.5% of scientists who conclude that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. You can join the handful of kooks who want to believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old.

First of all, trying to refute work that has been peer-reviewed wtih an non-reviewed article is pretty lame.

Oh, so your conclusion that C-14 in coal and diamonds is evidence of a young Earth has been "peer reviewed"? Because that is what I was referring to. I am not refuting the work that found C-14 in coal and diamonds. What's "pretty lame" is twisting around my meaning. And in case you didn't notice, the article I referenced listed numerous sources.

I must also mention that YECs like you normally dismiss C-14 dating as being "unreliable". But here you want to use it as evidence of what you want to believe. If you're using it here, then you must also accept it as valid. In which case, C-14 dating is evidence that the planet is much more than just a few thousand years old. So which is it? Is C-14 dating valid or not?

Secondly, arguing for contamination that was never observed is not scientific.

Things don't need to be directly observed in order for us to make a reasonable conclusion as to what happened. You find a large boulder lying at the base of a cliff. No one saw the boulder fall. Is it reasonable to conclude that the boulder fell from the cliff above? Or should we think a deity placed it there?

Assuming un-observed contamination occurred is a way of cramming the evidence into the paradigm.

It's the most reasonable explanation given our current knowledge. And, as detailed in the article I posted, there is evidence to support this explanation.

[Captain Scarlet]

Hi rjh4.

Oh it was quite a deliberate Strawman, but only to draw a contrast with the previous paragraph, to prevent a slippery descent of the argument. As for YEC and ID. What are they claiming then with respect to fully formed animals that do not change through time? I do not recognise the "evolution (change)" meme you keep using, please elaborate.

I am not convinced that YEC is compatible with evolution I think an expert in evo-devo would claim that the given the mutation rates required would kill the animal outright. But if you know different..I am all ears?

I do not agree that supernatural agency is necessarily undetectable to science. If there is an intervention in our material world it is detectable. The mulitple witnessing of the bodily resurrection of a dead person, would be one such event. If there was no natural explanation we would need to invoke supernaturalism. The trouble is all such events and claims is that they are a) never subject to adequate scrutiny b) are subject to adequate scrutiny and are found to be nothing extraordinary at all let alone supernatural. There are many other tests we can do: the efficacy of prayer, the breaking of the physical laws (eg Gravity), miracle healing...ALL fail if and when put to the test.

[Anomalocaris]

...... (common descent) has made in the fields of medical research and agricultural research that could not also have been predicted just as well by supernatural creation by a God who initially created various "kinds" and who built into the DNA of those "kinds" the potential for the evolution (change) of those original "kinds".

Any naturalistic explanation for any discovery can be coopted by presupposing tailored interference by any of an infinite different entity or entities that could be dreamt up with the power to make everything just so. So the fact that one particular such entity (god) can be unfalsifiably claimed do this is no credit to the theory that this entity existed. However, while any theory tailored interference can tailor itself to fit any evidence ex post, I am at a loss to think of any theory of tailored interference having demonstratably uniquely anticipated any discovery without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism to make the prediction.

So I challenge you to respond to the assertion that no theory of god is better than any other theory of god, and no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has no need for any theory of god.

[rjh4 is back]

Oh it was quite a deliberate Strawman, but only to draw a contrast with the previous paragraph, to prevent a slippery descent of the argument.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

As for YEC and ID. What are they claiming then with respect to fully formed animals that do not change through time?

I'm not sure what you mean by this either. My point was that I do not think the typical ID or YEC position would ever assert fully formed kinds do not change or have not changed (i.e., that there is no speciation type change of any sort in the subsequent generations of those kinds).

I do not recognise the "evolution (change)" meme you keep using, please elaborate.

I am trying to draw a distinction between two uses of the word "evolution". The word, when used in the context of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is generally used to mean "common descent", i.e., all life has a single common anscestor. The word, when used in normal discussions sometimes is being used to mean "common descent" and sometimes to mean "change". While we would agree that living things "change" through generations (evolution throughout generations), I would take issue with the idea of "common descent" (evolution ala Darwin).

I am not convinced that YEC is compatible with evolution I think an expert in evo-devo would claim that the given the mutation rates required would kill the animal outright. But if you know different..I am all ears?

I didn't think we were talking about evolution within a single animal, I thought we were talking about evolution through generations of animals. Anyway, I'm not sure that it is just mutation rates that will kill an animal. I think we generally observe that if any animal has too many DNA mutations, whether inherited or whether induced, it dies. Thus, there seems to be observed limits as to how much a particular type of animal can change. This is, in fact, an argument against evolution (common descent) but not an argument against evolution (change - which is easily observable).

I do not agree that supernatural agency is necessarily undetectable to science. If there is an intervention in our material world it is detectable. The mulitple witnessing of the bodily resurrection of a dead person, would be one such event. If there was no natural explanation we would need to invoke supernaturalism. The trouble is all such events and claims is that they are a) never subject to adequate scrutiny b) are subject to adequate scrutiny and are found to be nothing extraordinary at all let alone supernatural. There are many other tests we can do: the efficacy of prayer, the breaking of the physical laws (eg Gravity), miracle healing...ALL fail if and when put to the test.

Maybe...but wouldn't any conclusion regarding the supernatural then be unscientific by definition?

---

Any naturalistic explanation for any discovery can be coopted by presupposing tailored interference by any of an infinite different entity or entities that could be dreamt up with the power to make everything just so. So the fact that one particular such entity (god) can be unfalsifiably claimed do this is no credit to the theory that this entity existed.

I suppose so.

However, while any theory tailored interference can tailor itself to fit any evidence ex post, I am at a loss to think of any theory of tailored interference having demonstratably uniquely anticipated any discovery without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism to make the prediction.

So I challenge you to respond to the assertion that no theory of god is better than any other theory of god, and no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has no need for any theory of god.

You seem to be implying that the belief in God is somehow at odds with methodological naturalism and somehow inferior to it. However, it seems to me that the whole idea of methodological naturalism arose from the idea that God exists, that He created the universe such that it behaves in a relatively consistent manner, and, therefore we can discover through methodological naturalism how God's creation works. As Statler Waldorf has pointed out, many of the great scientists in the past, including those like Bacon who is considered the father of the scientific method, believed in God. So I will argue that the whole of the scientific method did not arise separate from belief in God, even the Biblical God, but was, in fact, a product of such a belief in the Biblical God. From this, I conclude that because of the history of how the scientific method came to be, that a position that relies upon the Biblical God is better overall as it produced the scientific method and all of the accurate benefits/predictions resulting from it (the scientific method).

[Captain Scarlet]

Maybe...but wouldn't any conclusion regarding the supernatural then be unscientific by definition?

Who knows how such an observation would be classified; it has never happened. People are claiming miracles all the time, yet they are left holding nothing but their own conviction if their claims get investigated. I would contest that the simplest explnation is that it is not that the supernatural is by definition hidden to science, but that the supernatural doesn't exist.

[Anomalocaris]

You seem to be implying that the belief in God is somehow at odds with methodological naturalism and somehow inferior to it. However, it seems to me that the whole idea of methodological naturalism arose from the idea that God exists, that He created the universe such that it behaves in a relatively consistent manner, and, therefore we can discover through methodological naturalism how God's creation works.

Assertion of god is unnecessary. Near parallels of proto-methodological naturalism evolved in cultures without any conception of your god or anything remotely comparable. Proto-Methodological naturalism evolve bottom up because it is seen, when local cultural and religious strictures would allow it, to produce results.

It is possible for certain religious concepts to initially encourage methodological naturalism from the top down as a means, in its unwarranted confidence, to further support itself; just as it is also possible for the belief in Santa Clause to encourage the systematic mapping of the North Pole to enable you to visit. But even if they did so encourage the development of useful things, that is no proof for the validity of their tennants, indeed it is not even an argument for such. The things are useful by themselves. The case for methodological naturalism is complete without the assumptions of that religion, just as the case for systematic mapping of north pole is complete without the assumption of santa clause.

As Statler Waldorf has pointed out, many of the great scientists in the past, including those like Bacon who is considered the father of the scientific method, believed in God. So I will argue that the whole of the scientific method did not arise separate from belief in God, even the Biblical God, but was, in fact, a product of such a belief in the Biblical God. From this, I conclude that because of the history of how the scientific method came to be, that a position that relies upon the Biblical God is better overall as it produced the scientific method and all of the accurate benefits/predictions resulting from it (the scientific method).

That argument is already maximally risible without the lillies also being gilded with tha name Statler Waldoff. See Santa Clause example above.

[rjh4 is back]

I would contest that the simplest explnation is that it is not that the supernatural is by definition hidden to science, but that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Why, in your opinion, is that the simplest explanation?