Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Anomalocaris]

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?

Because the alternative explanation demand something(s) for which there is neither evidence nor need, and insist that thing be just a particular way for which there is again neither evidence nor need. Any explanation which is not rooted to the greatest degree practical in need and evidence is more extravagant and complex by definition than one which is.

[rjh4 is back]

Near parallels of proto-methodological naturalism evolved in cultures without any conception of your god or anything remotely comparable.

Example and evidence please.

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.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that scientists like Bacon developed methodological naturalism to further support his belief in God? If not, I guess I just don't see your point.

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.

Indeed. And I don't think I ever argued any such thing. You commented that "no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism". My point was that Bacon's theory of God produced methodological naturalism and, therefore could be considered to have produced all of what methodological naturalism has produced as well as methodological naturalism itself. It would then seem to follow that at least Bacon's theory of God produced more than methodological naturalism itself has produced.

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.

Maybe so, but it seems that methodological naturalism did not come to be apart from certain assumptions about God. (Unless you can provide the evidence asked for above.)

That argument is already maximally risible ...

Why? I find it curious that you would hold a position that Bacon's thinking that lead to methodological naturalism is somehow laughable whereas the result of that thinking, methodological naturalism, is superior and usable to prove his original thinking incorrect.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)

______________________________

---

I love that, “14C in coal is probably produced”, they don’t have the slightest clue why it is there becaue their accepted paradigm can’t explain it. It’s also quite funny that they never tested for it in the first place because they knew there would not be any because they knew the coal was far too old to contain C14. It took a bunch of creationists to actually do the tests and find exactly what they predicted they’d find. So now the old earth crowd is struggling and thinking up these crazy un-observed occurrences to explain away the mysterious C14. However, if they argue too much for contamination they will essentially destroy radio-carbon dating because it could never be trusted from here on out. Find a date that doesn’t fit your paradigm, argue for contamination! That’s not science.

I also find it interesting that you will accept someone’s email over the validity of a eight year, multi-million dollar, peer-reviewed research project. At least we all know you are not objective about these matters.

I never said Creationists don't make predications! You have invented the goalposts to move all by yourself. I'll wait for you to revoke that. Sure Creationists make lots of predictions, mostly garbage: see Kent Hovind. He also has a lot of interesting theories; one which sticks in the mind explaining the formation of the polar ice caps from a comet impact. Brilliant! You remind me of him :-). What I actually said was:

"When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research?"

It has still not been answered, but hey take your time.

Nice, you pulled the old “guilty by association fallacy”. I am sure you are aware that Kent Hovind is not part of the mainstream Creation movement and the argument you mention has been refuted by AIG, CMI, and ICR. If you have to set up these straw-man arguments to feel smart, by all means continue. It’s not like no evolutionists ever have proposed ridiculous theories (afterall Darwin did believe cells were only bags of protoplasm and blacks were closer to gorillas than whites).

What does an actual mainstream Creation organization say about Hovind?

CMI says, “CMI’s scientists have no personal beef with Kent Hovind, though we have tried to persuade him for a long time to not have seriously discredited (and some fraudulent, like the Wyatt discoveries) arguments on his site, nor to link creationism with things like his esoteric notions on tax.”

So maybe you should try and make arguments that actually hold water.

I think what you meant to say was that evolution requires time to take effect, and to get to current bio-diversity a lot of time. I would agree with that. Thus when we look at the age of the earth it is good support that evolution did infact have enough time to take effect. c14 It is not strong evidence against the ages of coal seams as there are many other stronger indicators including the process of petrification, stratigraphy, well preserved fossilised remains of plants in the coal seams from amongst the matrix. For sure its an anomoly, but I'd rather wait for the research first, wouldn't you?

Huh? So when radiocarbon dating doesn’t support your paradigm it’s not reliable but when it does it’s the best thing on Earth?
Petrifaction does not have to require long periods of time (petrified teddy bears, toy cars, and fencing have all been found) so you should not use that as justification to ignore the obvious implications of C14 in Diamonds and Coal. Stratifying of soil and rock layers also does not require long periods of time, the Mt. St. Helens eruption laid down over 600 feet of sediment that was all stratified. So you should not use that as reason to ignore the obvious implications of C14 in coal and diamonds either.
Wait for the research? Well the research that found it was an eight year, multi-million dollar, peer-reviewed project. So when you actually say, “wait for the research”, you mean, “I’ll wait for the scientists who accept my paradigm to give me a reason to doubt the results” right? That’s not science.

No I can't see how they remotely provide evidence for creation. Just as the crocodile has a common ancestor with alligators and caymens, but in itself is relatively unchanged from the Cretaceous period. There is no proof of creation here. If someone found a living dinosaur tomorrow that would not prove creation. However if someone found humans remains in a Cretaceous sedimentary layer, then we would have some evidence disproving evolution, but not evidence supporting "YAHWEH did it".

Since you brought Yahweh up, how did He say He created animals? “Each after their kind”, so yes we’d expect to see many of the kinds of animals to be present very “early” in the fossil record, just like the early Chordates. Remember, fossilization is a very rare occurrence, so to use it as evidence that humans did not live alongside dinosaurs is not appropriate. After all, we know that coelacanths and whales live alongside one another and they have never been fond together in the fossil record. I think stronger evidence would be accepted historical sources such as Marco Polo and Josephus saying they saw large terrible lizards (dinosaurs) long before dinosaur fossils were discovered.

Are you an expert in evo-devo? How do you know this?

Well actually I am a professional in the scientific community, so that would make me more of an expert than you. That’s beside the point, observed mutation rates do not occur fast enough today to account for the significant levels of change in that “short” of a time period. In fact, that significant amount of change in organisms has never been observed to even be possible. We can intentionally select for traits for thousands of years but all the breeds of dogs are just as equally dogs, I assure you. So if you want to believe other-wise purely on faith go ahead, I already have my own faith though so I don’t need yours.

I would imagine she tested the result 17 times because scientists are skeptical, tend to care about the truth and be rigorous around validating it. I guess she was a little surprised as it is a unique find (at least thus far!). Bare assertion and incredulity on your part, to assume that she had it in for YEC. But how does it prove YEC? Again it demonstrates how petrifiction is not a linear process but varies with environment and conditions, although given the enormous timescales involved most dinosaur remains are fully petrified, whereas those from more recent strata are less so and for ancestral hominids are not petrified at all given they are 100-200k years ago.

They are only that rigorous when the data seems to contradict their paradigm. Trust me; she would not have done the test 17 times if she had found exactly what was expected, no soft tissue present. Mary is actually a Christian, so I do not believe she “has it out” for YEC, she is just not young Earth herself. However, since her amazing discovery, numerous other cases of soft tissue have been found once paleontologists started looking. So who knows, the majority of fossils looked at in the past may also have had it, it was never really looked for. I assure you though, soft tissue breaks down far too quickly for those fossils to be 65 million years old. A vile of blood left at room temperature is almost unrecognizable in a matter of weeks. Blood that is even preserved in blood banks couldn’t last for millions of years (the Red Cross only keeps blood for 42 days, plasma that is frozen only lasts a year). Like I said, it’s rather amazing soft tissue even lasted a few thousand years.

You are going to have to do a lot better than this rag-tail assortment to show evidence FOR creation. Still it is no surprise when you look at the stats. for Intelligent Design (creation by any other name; and before you argue with that - yes it is!)

Haha, oh the old ID= Biblical Creationism canard. Are there Biblical Creationists who are part of the ID movement? Only a couple. However, there are also agnostics (Dr. David Berlinski) and even scientists who believe in pan-spermia. So to paint them all with the Creationist brush is rather ignorant. I wish they were all YEC, but sorry they are not.

when 20m scientific papers were searched through a couple of years ago:
the keyword evolution appeared 115k times
the keyword intelligent design 88 times (yes eighty-eight and not thousands)
of the 88, 77 were in engineering journals
of the 11 remaining 8 were critical of intelligent design
the remaining 3 failed to get published in research journals

So? If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals, I would not be surprised if the term evolution was never used in a positive manner. So I am not surprised Secular journals don’t publish articles that affirm the truth of Creation.

---

So far your arguments a taking a very familiar line. One put down by Dawkins in the blind watchmaker:

Dawkins quotes Montefiore: "As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises. If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage."

Dawkins gives this translation of Montefiore's paragraph: "I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears might benefit from being white."

Perhaps you would like to add Bishop Hugh Montefiores argumentation to your arguments/evidence FOR creation as well?

---

More guilt by association fallacy. It’s just as invalid here as it was the first time you used it. I love how Dawkins won’t debate actual Creation Scientists because he “doesn’t want to give them credibility”, but he will debate a bishop. So it’s obvious it’s not granting credibility he is worried about, it’s being publicly humiliated he is really worried about. The guy is a joke.

[

---

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!

---

[rjh4 is back]

So you accept the premise is true?

I don't know if I would go that far. However, I won't argue against it.

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?

I have an opinion on just about everything. In this case, I think getting drunk/stoned is a waste of one's time. But it is your time to do with what you will.

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 don't think narrowing down the scope of investigation to natural causes necessarily means making an assumption of metaphysical naturalism. So while I agree with you that "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." and I do not have a problem with that, I still disagree that methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism as you first proposed.

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?

That methodological naturalism requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and not an assumption of metaphysical naturalism.

[Anomalocaris]

Near parallels of proto-methodological naturalism evolved in cultures without any conception of your god or anything remotely comparable.

Example and evidence please.

Milesian school of the Ionian Pre-Socratic philosophy

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.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that scientists like Bacon developed methodological naturalism to further support his belief in God? If not, I guess I just don't see your point.

The point is the role religion may or may not have played in development the scientific method does not bear on the validity of the tenants of the religion, now does this "antecedence" imply any relative merit.

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.

Indeed. And I don't think I ever argued any such thing. You commented that "no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism". My point was that Bacon's theory of God produced methodological naturalism and, therefore could be considered to have produced all of what methodological naturalism has produced as well as methodological naturalism itself. It would then seem to follow that at least Bacon's theory of God produced more than methodological naturalism itself has produced.

Methodological naturalism does not follow uniquely from Bacon's theory of god. Nor does christianity show any signs of converging upon the form that would produce Bacon's theory of god. Indeed the most aggressive strains of christianity shows quite the sign of the reverse. So to credit god or his religion with the result of one man's imagination is little short of rediculous.

If you are bogged down attacking an intractable math problem, and some lunatic shouts some nonsense which in the din of the room you misheard as a meaningful word that happen to give you inspiration, Then the equivalent of your theory of the antecednece of god to methodological naturalism would be for you to credit the lunatic's lunacy for your solution to the problem. And from this basis you might argue everyone should become a lunatic.

Using the Santa Clause example, the belief in Santa Clause could be said to have produced all of the art of cartography. But what does it say about you if you continue to believe in the physical existence of Santa Clause for that reason?

Maybe so, but it seems that methodological naturalism did not come to be apart from certain assumptions about God. (Unless you can provide the evidence asked for above.)

Things are not as they seem to you. See above.

That argument is already maximally risible ...

Why? I find it curious that you would hold a position that Bacon's thinking that lead to methodological naturalism is somehow laughable whereas the result of that thinking, methodological naturalism, is superior and usable to prove his original thinking incorrect.

Perhaps you should look at the Santa Clause example again.

If the concept that a quality of a man's work does not in itself validate the cause that prompted him to perform the work, and his work could in fact prove the invalidity of the cause, is still too abstract, you might related to another example: Do you suppose the fact that Maya cosmology led directly to Mayan development of sophisticated algebra means Maya cosmology is therefore better than algebra? Do you see any obstacle in the algebra developed for the service of Mayan cosmology being incorporated into a system that can then be used to discredit Maya cosmology?

[theVOID]

So you accept the premise is true?

I don't know if I would go that far. However, I won't argue against it.

Oh come on that sounds like a complete cop out . Either the premises are sound and valid or they are not... Can you name a single methodology that has gathered more results? If not then you are epistemically unjustified in accepting any other methodology as the most effective.

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?

I have an opinion on just about everything. In this case, I think getting drunk/stoned is a waste of one's time. But it is your time to do with what you will.

A waste of time? No more so than any other recreational activity and far less so than a great many as I can actually be productive while stoned.

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 don't think narrowing down the scope of investigation to natural causes necessarily means making an assumption of metaphysical naturalism.

That is exactly what it means. Have you ever seen a proposed test for something that did not involve measuring natural causes, or a time where an anomaly arises in data and the scientists have said "oh, that must just be one of the times where the universe isn't consistent as usual"?

So while I agree with you that "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." and I do not have a problem with that, I still disagree that methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism as you first proposed.

That's like saying "I'm going to investigate x and only look for information of x from a tiny portion (natural) of all the logically possible answers (supernaturalism+naturalism)"

If you have no way of measuring the non-natural or any way of determining the start of a causal chain was non-natural then you might as well be assuming that there is only nature.

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?

That methodological naturalism requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and not an assumption of metaphysical naturalism.

[/quote]

The scientist might not make the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but the methodology is grounded in it. Unless you know of a way of measuring non-natural things with all the rigours of science then again, you might as well accept that the method makes that assumption.

[Captain Scarlet]

You're a funny guy Statler...nothing new in your responses but they are getting hysterical. You love to pick out fallacies and then can't wait to stick you're own in, keep it up

Kent Hovind is not part of the mainstream Creation movement

Is Ray Comfort? Oh please say he is.

If you have to set up these straw-man arguments to feel smart, by all means continue. Maybe you should try and make arguments that actually hold water.

Oh the sweet irony...so maybe you should try and make arguments at all, and some FOR creation would be a great place to start

So when you actually say, “wait for the research”, you mean, “I’ll wait for the scientists who accept my paradigm to give me a reason to doubt the results” right? That’s not science

No I don't mean that, and yes it is science. The fact the you rush like an over eager puppy and want to say "look, look god did it", isn't that impressive.

Well actually I am a professional in the scientific community, so that would make me more of an expert than you

How do you know what I do? Oh and if you are a professional scientist, that is really scary. But then Kent was a high school science teacher too, teaching in his own school after getting a doctorate in "truthology" or whatever it was.

I assure you though, soft tissue breaks down far too quickly for those fossils to be 65 million years old

Forgive me if I don't take you're assurance on this.

ID= Biblical Creationism canard

Come on Statler we weren't born yesterday. Everyone knows what IDs agenda is. What is the difference between Creation Science and ID, apart from the fact ID are too scared to mention "God did it", just in case they frighten folks away? Berlinski wants a platform to vent his incredulity from...end of.

If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals

Yes that would be useful, go for it! See how many times you get the keyword evidence (actually followed by some). You know what they say "if a job ain't worth doing, it ain't worth doing well".

So it’s obvious it’s not granting credibility he is worried about, it’s being publicly humiliated he is really worried about

At least thats one interpretation. Another could be why give a PR platform to people who offer PR but no evidence. Mind you it could all be a BIG conspiracy. Next we will be arranging 'accidents' for 'Creation Scientists' and 'Design Theorists' to silence them and their pesky evidence.

---

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?

Because the alternative explanation demand something(s) for which there is neither evidence nor need, and insist that thing be just a particular way for which there is again neither evidence nor need. Any explanation which is not rooted to the greatest degree practical in need and evidence is more extravagant and complex by definition than one which is.

Chuck said it more eloquently that myself rjh4.

It seems to me to have a credible alternative you would need to establish that the supernatural necesarily exists and then also provide evidence of the effects of the supernatural in the natural world (and I have provided some examples of how this can be done). Until then it is a more complicated explanation as in itself it is no different from mysticism, magic, crystal healing etc.

[Justtristo]

So? If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals, I would not be surprised if the term evolution was never used in a positive manner. So I am not surprised Secular journals don’t publish articles that affirm the truth of Creation.

The purpose of peer reviewed scholarly journals are to be a crank filter, this works fine, unless the cranks are in the charge of the journal. In this case the so called creation science journals.

Why is it all the big shots in "creation science" insist on calling themselves Dr such and such or Professor so and so. Generally big shot scientists in other fields don't bother to say they are Dr such and such or Professor so and so.

[rjh4 is back]

Oh come on that sounds like a complete cop out .

If you say so.

Either the premises are sound and valid or they are not...

Well I agree with you there. But maybe I don't have enough information to be able to tell which it is.

Can you name a single methodology that has gathered more results?

I don't know. We haven't discussed how you are counting results, how you are evaluating the truthfulness of premise 2, etc. So I really don't know if I could do this or not. And I really don't think it necessary to get into all of that.

If not then you are epistemically unjustified in accepting any other methodology as the most effective.

Maybe. But who said I did accept any other methodology as the most effective?

A waste of time?

Yes. A waste of time.

No more so than any other recreational activity and far less so than a great many as I can actually be productive while stoned.

If you say so.

That's like saying "I'm going to investigate x and only look for information of x from a tiny portion (natural) of all the logically possible answers (supernaturalism+naturalism)"

That is exactly correct. And what is the problem with that? Are you suggesting that the supernatural is not a logically possible answer? If so, why? Certainly methodological naturalism cannot help you determine whether or not the supernatural is a logically possible answer. Its basic assumption, according to you, is metaphysical naturalism which necessarily excludes supernature and, therefore, there is no possiblity of it (methodological naturalism) concluding the supernatural is a logically possible answer.

If you have no way of measuring the non-natural or any way of determining the start of a causal chain was non-natural then you might as well be assuming that there is only nature.

The scientist might not make the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but the methodology is grounded in it. Unless you know of a way of measuring non-natural things with all the rigours of science then again, you might as well accept that the method makes that assumption.

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

---

Generally big shot scientists in other fields don't bother to say they are Dr such and such or Professor so and so.

That is certainly not my experience. I have been around plenty of PhDs in my work (all of whom would consider it an insult to be called a creationist). I have even supervised plenty of them. The vast majority use the title regularly and introduce themselves that way, etc.

---

Milesian school of the Ionian Pre-Socratic philosophy

I really was hoping for more of an explanation and citation of where I could look. Can you help me out a bit more?

The point is the role religion may or may not have played in development the scientific method does not bear on the validity of the tenants of the religion...

I think I already agreed with you on that.

Methodological naturalism does not follow uniquely from Bacon's theory of god. Nor does christianity show any signs of converging upon the form that would produce Bacon's theory of god. Indeed the most aggressive strains of christianity shows quite the sign of the reverse. So to credit god or his religion with the result of one man's imagination is little short of rediculous.

I guess I see your point.

If the concept that a quality of a man's work does not in itself validate the cause that prompted him to perform the work, and his work could in fact prove the invalidity of the cause, is still too abstract, you might related to another example: Do you suppose the fact that Maya cosmology led directly to Mayan development of sophisticated algebra means Maya cosmology is therefore better than algebra?

Maybe. It probably depends on how one would define and evaluate "better", i.e., from what perspective.

Do you see any obstacle in the algebra developed for the service of Mayan cosmology being incorporated into a system that can then be used to discredit Maya cosmology?

No.

[annatar]

Yay!