Creationist methodology

[Celsus]

Hello all,

I'd like to ask a few random questions about creationist methodology:

1) What are the principles from which scientific questions are examined/investigated?
2) Would methodological naturalism have any role to play in this methodology?
3) How is evidence dated/measured?
4) Do you agree with the "Wedge" strategy a la Johnson?
5) How does one avoid God-of-the-Gaps reasoning? (or are creationists fine with it?)

Cheers,
Joel

[Jin-Roh]

Hello. Welcome to the boards and everything.

I'm not to deep into the Creation/Evolution debate myself, but if you really want to know, check out these websites.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.rae.org
http://www.icr.org/

The impression I got from Ken Ham of AnswerInGenesis, is that they bring out statements that are mentioned in secular media that indicated YE or Creation that skeptics seem to miss even as the make them. Like for instance, he mentioned how Red Blood Cells where once discovered within a semi-fossilized Dinosuar bone, or how he debated a geologisized who said that diamonds and oil could be formed in a labratory in a relatively short period of time.

That's about all I can know. You can also check out the http://www.xrds.net forums. The college pastor out there regurally teaches YEC.

[Celsus]

Thank you Jin-Roh,

Unfortunately, none of those sites had any real outlines on creationist methodology, as far as I could find. Interestingly, http://www.rae.org produced zero hits in their search engine when I typed in "methodology." This article (http://www.icr.org/research/misc/sd-01.htm) I found at ICR struck me as self-parody. The analysis had the quality of undergraduate level statistics... In fairness, overall methodological problems are for philosophers of science to tackle.

Perhaps someone else will answer the questions posed above?

Cheers,
Joel

[QED]

Jin-Roh,
Tactics aren't quite the same as methodology.

Also it is naive to think that "skeptics" miss the import of what they are saying WRT the "age of the earth." At least in the case of genetic material from dinosaurs, the community dismissed most of those very quickly. The results were dubious because DNA doesn't last so long as to survive from 65+mya, leading them to look for flaws in the researchers' methods. Although recent efforts have been carried out with extreme caution, there is no way to completely eliminate contamination with modern DNA, and they do still occassionally get a false positive.

As to oil and diamonds, these have almost nothing to do with the calculated ages of the earth and its geological periods. They are often brought up as a falsification for special creation by amateurs such as myself, and as far as we can tell they still work. After all it is the age of the earth with its geological processes that are interesting, not the age of laboratories where unique conditions are set up (at huge expense) that allow processes that normally take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to produce a large quantity of a substance to be accelerated so that very small quantities of the same substance can be made very quickly.

[Celsus]

Anyone?

[TheFiveSolas]

A short summary of creationist methodology can be found at the following site:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

[Socratism]

03-05-2003 @ 07:33 AM
QED:

Jin-Roh,
Tactics aren't quite the same as methodology.

Which is one of the criticisms of evolution.


Also it is naive to think that "skeptics" miss the import of what they are saying WRT the "age of the earth." At least in the case of genetic material from dinosaurs, the community dismissed most of those very quickly.


Many did and I think you know why.


The results were dubious because DNA doesn't last so long as to survive from 65+mya, leading them to look for flaws in the researchers' methods. Although recent efforts have been carried out with extreme caution, there is no way to completely eliminate contamination with modern DNA, and they do still occassionally get a false positive.

The contamination at issue here is with current DNA, primarily human DNA or something present in the presumed environment. All this was discussed in the journal article by the researchers. If there is doubt in this case then there would certainly be similar doubt about any finding of ancient DNA.


As to oil and diamonds, these have almost nothing to do with the calculated ages of the earth and its geological periods. They are often brought up as a falsification for special creation by amateurs such as myself, and as far as we can tell they still work. After all it is the age of the earth with its geological processes that are interesting, not the age of laboratories where unique conditions are set up (at huge expense) that allow processes that normally take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to produce a large quantity of a substance to be accelerated so that very small quantities of the same substance can be made very quickly.

It has been shown that under special conditions oil and diamonds can be generated quickly, but it has never been shown experimentally that they are formed over millions of years. In this case rapid formation has thus been demonstrated as a possibility whereas formation over millions of years has not. This is not conclusive of course but it slightly favors thecreation account of a young earth.

Incidentally, coal and organic material in "ancient" sandstone have been dated by C-14, even though the results are dismissed as "impossible" by those committed to long ages.

[QED]

03-06-2003 @ 06:24 PM
Socratism:

If there is doubt in this case then there would certainly be similar doubt about any finding of ancient DNA.

There always is.


This is not conclusive of course but it slightly favors thecreation account of a young earth.

How so? Banana pudding forms quickly, and banana pudding exists. Can we say that this "slightly favors" a young earth?


Incidentally, coal and organic material in "ancient" sandstone have been dated by C-14, even though the results are dismissed as "impossible" by those committed to long ages.

I would like to see the source. I think you may be confusing measurable quantities of C-14 in coal from old sandstone with having it "dated" by that method. This isn't a big problem.

[Socratism]

03-06-2003 @ 02:44 PM
QED:
How so? Banana pudding forms quickly, and banana pudding exists. Can we say that this "slightly favors" a young earth?

Some evolutionists claim that oil and diamonds take millions of years to form and that this "fact" falsifies a young Earth. It is not a "fact" and the experiments indicate that they can form rapidly under certain conditions. It is true that this doesn't "prove" that those conditions ever prevailed, but it does show that rapid formation is not an unreasonable hypothesis.


I would like to see the source. I think you may be confusing measurable quantities of C-14 in coal from old sandstone with having it "dated" by that method. This isn't a big problem.

If the sandstone were as old as evolutionists have claimed then there should be no measurable C-14 in it (>50,000 years). Ditto for the coal.

Claiming contamination as an explanation means that ANY C-14 date would then always be in doubt.

[QED]

03-06-2003 @ 08:53 PM
Socratism:

Some evolutionists claim that oil and diamonds take millions of years to form and that this "fact" falsifies a young Earth. It is not a "fact" and the experiments indicate that they can form rapidly under certain conditions.

Technically, those are geologists who make claims about how rapidly oil and diamonds form under natural conditions. Not being experienced in the field, I wouldn't care to try second guessing them, using results from conditions that are not known to exist in nature. Is the geological understanding of how oil and diamonds form are "falsification" of the young earth? That's a tough one. Falsification of the young earth was done by in the 18th & 19th century, prior to the models of oil & diamond formation that have since been developed (and also prior to Darwin's presentation of his thesis). The evidence came mostly from the geologic column. It was enough to convince the scientists of the day, most of whom were biased toward the young earth view because it was a) their understanding of scripture, and b) the current scientific paradigm of the time.



It is true that this doesn't "prove" that those conditions ever prevailed, but it does show that rapid formation is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

"Rapid formation" isn't really much of an hypothesis by itself. We need a hypothesis like "rapid formation under x temperature, y pressue, z mineral saturation, etc... " Then, if we are very curious to know whether a given oil deposit formed quickly, we could at least know what conditions must be present for its rapid formation.


If the sandstone were as old as evolutionists have claimed then there should be no measurable C-14 in it (~50,000 years). Ditto for the coal.

Unless it was contaminated in situ as a product of decay of heavier isotopes.


Claiming contamination as an explanation means that ANY C-14 date would then always be in doubt.

Only if in situ contamination amounted to a quantity sufficient to alter an assigned date. The quantities we are talking about are measureable, but so minute as to not affect the date assigned by radiometric dating. That is, if you are indeed referring to the reports that I have been exposed to previously.