Scientific Theory of Creation/Intelligent Design

[Tycho]

There are a couple of threads here dedicated to evidence for creationism, but before we get into that, perhaps we should look at a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. After that, the evidence threads should hopefully go more smoothly.

Please keep in mind that criticisms of biology, cosmology, physics, astronomy, or geology do not constitute a theory of creation. Also keep in mind that a scientific theory of creation should be able to be tested with the scientific method.

Hopefully, such a theory will provide testable explanations regarding the diversity of life and the mechanisms that are responsible for that diversity.

[Socratism]

According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories. If that is true then by definition there can not be a scientific theory of creation, for the act of creation is by definition not natural.

[Tycho]

Naturalistic theories are theories that can be tested and studied. If a theory deals with the supernatural, it's untestable and therefore useless.

Let's say that one day, you wake up feeling sick. There are several hypotheses that would explain this:
(1) You have a bacterial infection.
(2) You have been poisoned.
(3) Undetectable devils are cursing you.
(4) Undetectable angels are testing you.
(5) Undetectable leprechauns are hurting you.

We can test hypotheses (1) and (2), but cannot test hypotheses (3), (4), and (5). This means that from the evidece we can gather, (1) and (2) are distinct while (3), (4), and (5) cannot be distinguished despite the fact that they are contradictory claims. In fact, there are any number of supernatural claims that one could use to attempt to explain your feeling sick, but since we can test none of them, we could never have any reason to think that they're true.

So, if you have no scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design), then you have nothing that can be tested, and thus there can be no evidence in favor of creationism or intelligent design.

[Stratnerd]

According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.
one should be able to sort out a paradigm that presumes a 6000 year old eath and organisms with one the presumes a much older earth and organisms related by degrees by decent. the act of creation might be supernatural and the cause of a flood might be supernatural but both models have very certain predictions. but the exercise is a waste of time if one doesn't even allow for falsification. Speaking only for myself, there is a very simple scenario that would preclude an evolutionary interpretation but that isn't what this discussion is about.

If creationists accept falsification of the creation paradigm then I would say that part of it (the non-supernatural aspects) can be tested "scientifically". Let me also add that hypotheses need not be tested empirically to be falsified simple observations can do the job quite nicely.

[QED]

According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories. If that is true then by definition there can not be a scientific theory of creation, for the act of creation is by definition not natural.

That's according to scientists, not particularly scientists of biology and evolution. Until you can tell us which beaker has God in it, to show how your system can be expected to behave under supernatural influences, supernatural explanations cannot be entertained by science.

BUT.

Special creation is not just a supernaturalistic idea. On many points, it makes very definite statements about nature, and its proponents have historically moved for it to be taught - as science, and treated as science. It is quite possible to identify the statements that Special Creation makes about nature and to test them.

One statement that certain variations of Special Creation makes is that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

We can observe happenings on stars that are measurably more distant than 10,000 light years, and this fact falsifies that statement. Ad hoc explanations of this fact meant to rescue the young universe from falsification on this point will likely be rejected unless those explanations can be confirmed, at least in principle, scientifically. Other measures of age (for instance radiometric dating of rock formations) also cast doubt on ad hoc attempts to salvage the young universe hypothesis. Ad hoc explanations of this other falsifying evidence will likely be rejected for similar reasons, and because of Occham's razor. The theory that requires more untestable ad hoc explanations is least likely to be true.

Another claim, almost universal to the variations of Special Creation is that all modern life forms first originated de novo, in a very similar form to their present day appearance. This has recently been broadened somewhat, so that "very similar" can be used to describe the original creation of bears (for instance) to both grizzlies and polar bears.

The falsification for this one is more difficult, because some of the evidence can be construed in favor of it - but only if other evidence is ignored, and left unexplained. For instance, there is a point in geological history where it seems that there was a "first" bear-like taxon, as represented in the fossil record. It is impossible to prove that other taxa, similar to both this first "bear", and the first "dogs", are actually related, as it would seem from applying the theory of evolution to interpret the larger body of evidence.

If we wish, we could allow this statement from Special Creation to remain unfalsified, and merely note that the theory of evolution is far more consistent with the larger body of the evidence. It is, however, possible to make a case for falsfication as well. We could do so most easily with humans and chimpanzees instead of bears and dogs. If we can show strong evidence that only supports a common descent between chimpanzees and humans, then we can conclude that they share descent, and that they must not have been created in a "very similar" form as the one they hold today. Enter genetic evidence.

Genetic homology can often be explained under Special Creation by the argument for common design. However, there exist several independent lines of evidence, arising from a number of distinct data, that cannot be explained this way, and can only be explained in terms of common descent. Once identified, we can consider the separate origin claim of Special Creation as falsified. One example is shared pseudogenes - genes that are strongly homologous to protein-coding genes, but that do not code for that protein. Another is shared endogenous retrovira. These are well understood. They are parts of the genome that contain the genetic code of a retrovirus that has copied itself at one point into a germ-line cell's nuclear matter. When they are consistently shared by more than one species at the same genetic locus, those species must be considered to have a common ancestor. Otherwise, these genetic markers would represent an accident against incalculably large odds, having occurred repeatedly in a relatively short period of time. Other evidence, linking all mammals by common descent also exists. The only reasonable and scientific conclusion is common descent, and this conclusion squarely falsifies the separate origin claim of Special Creation. I have yet to see the ad hoc explanation that creationists have for this evidence, but when it is conjured, it will fail for the same reasons that the ad hoc attempts to rescue the young universe from falsification have failed.

Thus, while supernatural claims from the idea of Special Creation are untestable and therefore unscientific, Special Creation is testable on the basis of its claims about nature - and is falsified.

[Tycho]

Socrates has recently been active, so I thought I might give him a chance to respond in this thread.

<bump>

[Socratism]

I made a simple statement:

According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.

Is there a consensus that this is correct or not?

If the statement is true then this thread would seem to be a waste of time.

[Tycho]

Creationists, notably Socrates, SherBear, and Socratism seem to be on quite a roll about how no evidence contradicts creation, or creationism, or a young Earth, or whatever. In fact, some of their posts even seem to hint that their may be evidence for their ideas. Surely, they must have a theory to which this evidence pertains, right? Otherwise, assertions about whether evidence supports or does not support their theory would be utterly meaningless.

Unless the creationists are seriously confused about what "evidence" refers to, they must have a theory that makes predictions which can be fulfilled by observation. So let's hear it!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 06:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45255#post45255)
Socratism:
According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.While a true state, it isn't as universal as it should be. By saying evolutionists, you mean those who study it. Not all scientists study evolution. It would seem to preclude that Physicists or Chemists, or some field of science would entertain non-naturalistic theories. This is false.

Therefore, the universal statement you should be using is:
According to scientists, science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45269#post45269)
Tycho:

Creationists, notably Socrates, SherBear, and Socratism seem to be on quite a roll about how no evidence contradicts creation, or creationism, or a young Earth, or whatever. In fact, some of their posts even seem to hint that their may be evidence for their ideas. Surely, they must have a theory to which this evidence pertains, right? Otherwise, assertions about whether evidence supports or does not support their theory would be utterly meaningless.

Unless the creationists are seriously confused about what &quot;evidence&quot; refers to, they must have a theory that makes predictions which can be fulfilled by observation. So let's hear it!

Any theory of origins must ultimately deal with ALL the evidence. Scientists have gathered quite a bit of evidence about nature (to say the least).

As far as I can see the evidence from geology. paleontology, chemistry, molecular biology, zoology, information theory, etc. all points to a recent multi-organism origin of lifeforms. Conversely, these fields all contain problems for the concept that all life originated from a single primitive replicating molecule.

[Tycho]

Today @ 08:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45345#post45345)
Socratism:
Any theory of origins must ultimately deal with ALL the evidence. Scientists have gathered quite a bit of evidence about nature (to say the least).
Indeed. A good theory should be able to explain current observations.

As far as I can see the evidence from geology. paleontology, chemistry, molecular biology, zoology, information theory, etc. all points to a recent multi-organism origin of lifeforms.
So far so good. Now, what predictions does this multi-organsim origin of life make? Just how many times did life originiate in your theory? Do current species (such as humans) share a common ancestor with some other species (such as other primates), or did each species arise seperately?

[WinAce]

Well, I can think of three main predictions off the bat:

(1) no fossils with morphologically intermediate characteristics between primitive and later species will be found.

(2) identical ancient retroviral infections will never be found at the same genetic locus in unrelated species, as they're all independent occurences.

(3) no species will have hidden characteristics like deactivated vitamin C genes or atavistic tails that were not originally present in the population of that species.

Creationism has been tested and falsified around Darwin's time. Creation itself is an unscientific proposition, makes no testable statements on the empirical evidence, and is thus scientifically meaningless.

[Socrates]

Winace:Creationism has been tested and falsified around Darwin's time. Creation itself is an unscientific proposition, makes no testable statements on the empirical evidence, and is thus scientifically meaningless.:rofl: Note that Winace is so keen to attack creation that he doesn't realise that he contradicts himself :doh:. Other evolutionary propagandists such as Gould and the NAS have made the same blunder :dufus:.

1. Creationism has been tested
2. Creation itself ... makes no testable statements

Like, how can it have been tested if it makes no testable statements?! :bonk:

[Socrates]

Socratism correctly pointed out:

According to evolutionists science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.

Jimmy managed to get a break from posting anti-Christian comments on his website and pull himself away from his duties as one of Saddam's cheer squad for long enough to say:
While a true state, it isn't as universal as it should be. By saying evolutionists, you mean those who study it. Not all scientists study evolution. It would seem to preclude that Physicists or Chemists, or some field of science would entertain non-naturalistic theories. This is false. And of course, creationists have REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED that they would not entertain supernatural theories for REPEATABLE observations IN THE PRESENT. This is what REAL science is about, including my field (chemistry) and JH's field, engineering.

JH:Therefore, the universal statement you should be using is:
“According to scientists, science can not entertain non-naturalistic theories.” What has science to do with evolution, which is a naturalistic theory of ORIGINS?

[Socrates]

QED:We can observe happenings on stars that are measurably more distant than 10,000 light years, and this fact falsifies that statement.QED evidently doesn't realise that a light year is a measurement of DISTANCE not time. See also How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp)

Then QED hurls some more elephants and appeals to Ockham's Razor. Of course, this would entail that God meant what He said in His account of Creation and the Flood (and QED will probably try to bore the pants off everyone by his hyperliteralist straw men).

Then QED makes this absurd claim:
Another claim, almost universal to the variations of Special Creation is that all modern life forms first originated de novo, in a very similar form to their present day appearance. This has recently been broadened somewhat, so that "very similar" can be used to describe the original creation of bears (for instance) to both grizzlies and polar bears. As I've pointed out before, the idea that the "kinds" are broader than what are now called "species" goes back at least as far as 1941, when Dr Frank Marsh coined the word baramin. Marsh showed that this often matches what are now classified as "families". And this has been mainstream creationist thinking since at least 1961, when Whitcomb and Morris wrote The Genesis Flood.

[tgamble]

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46035#post46035)
Socrates:

Winace:Creationism has been tested and falsified around Darwin's time. Creation itself is an unscientific proposition, makes no testable statements on the empirical evidence, and is thus scientifically meaningless.:rofl: Note that Winace is so keen to attack creation that he doesn't realise that he contradicts himself :doh:. Other evolutionary propagandists such as Gould and the NAS have made the same blunder :dufus:.

1. Creationism has been tested
2. Creation itself ... makes no testable statements

Like, how can it have been tested if it makes no testable statements?! :bonk:

Nobody claims that it makes no testable statements. The flood story has been tested and falseified for example.

QED evidently doesn't realise that a light year is a measurement of DISTANCE not time.

Socrates evidently prefers insults to facts.


We can calculate the age of the universe by mesuring the ditence of stars adn calculating how long it would take light to travel that far.


See also How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?


Nothing but a lot of hand waving and speculation on the alse premise that there's evidence for a young earth. A desperate appeal to unlikely and unsupported blind faith explanations.

Marsh showed that this often matches what are now classified as "families". And this has been mainstream creationist thinking since at least 1961, when Whitcomb and Morris wrote The Genesis Flood.


Naturally, creationists ignore the fact that such a wide catagory would obviously make macroevolution true. It would also make the bible false since only members of the same SPECIES not FAMILY can reproduce after their so called "kind".

[WinAce]

Today @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46035#post46035)
Socrates:

Winace:Creationism has been tested and falsified around Darwin's time. Creation itself is an unscientific proposition, makes no testable statements on the empirical evidence, and is thus scientifically meaningless.:rofl: Note that Winace is so keen to attack creation that he doesn't realise that he contradicts himself :doh:. Other evolutionary propagandists such as Gould and the NAS have made the same blunder :dufus:.

1. Creationism has been tested
2. Creation itself ... makes no testable statements

Like, how can it have been tested if it makes no testable statements?! :bonk:

Perhaps in your zeal to defend ancient Hebrew creation myths, you missed the highlighted in italics ism at the end of creationism in my post. If so, no problem - I recommend an optician referral service.

Creationism, as tgamble pointed out, consists of a position dealing with empirical evidence. Hence, it makes several concrete statements on the natural world that have been tested and falsified more than 200 years ago to the present (a 6000 year old earth, catastrophic global flood, no endogenous retrovirii or other after-the-fact addition to the genome ever being found identical in two different 'kinds', etc.).

Creation itself is a vague, undefined and hence meaningless affair. However, versions of it make testable empirical statements. Hence, we can teach it in history class as the primary scientific theory of days long past, before it was falsified, along with such gems as the Babylonian flat earth with a sky dome that Genesis is based on.

[Tycho]

This has got to be one of the most egregious attempts at quote-mining I've ever seen.

Winace
Creationism has been tested and falsified around Darwin's time. Creation itself is an unscientific proposition, makes no testable statements on the empirical evidence, and is thus scientifically meaningless.Socrates
1. Creationism has been tested
2. Creation itself ... makes no testable statements

Like, how can it have been tested if it makes no testable statements?! Next time Socrates, try not to post your altered statements right below the unaltered statements. It would be funny if you weren't so arrogant.

Anyway Socrates, do you have a scientific theory of creationism yet, or will you be tossing around your usual insults here with no attempt to debate?

[Socrates]

Tycho

I was distilling the essential points to show that Winace was contradicting himself in his desperate attempt to discredit creation. I don't expect the logic-impaired among us to understand.

It brings up a point that G.K. Chesterton brought up as to why the anti-christians helped turn him towards Christianity. That is, they were so desperate to discredit Christianity that their attacks contradicted each other. From this website commenting on his book Orthodoxy http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/chester.htm:

Chapters 6 and 7
The paradoxes of Christianity

Because the truth of Christianity is a complex truth, it is hard to argue directly for it. The case for it is cumulative, and this makes it hard to know where to begin. C. says that the anti-Christian literature of his day provided the clue as to how to begin (see p. 91).

Examples:

a. Christianity is too pessimistic: spreads gloom, keeps people from taking joy in nature, in their bodies, in their own autonomy, etc.
BUT Christianity is also too optimistic: consists in wishful thinking with its doctrines of Providence and life after death.

"This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it" (p. 92).

b. Christianity makes one too timid: emphasis on virtues like kindness, non-violence, monkishness
BUT Christianity also makes one too warlike: crusades, mother of wars.

"The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep ... [But] I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned upside down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much" (p. 93).

c. Christianity is just one among other religions; as a creed it divides people but as a moral code it is universal
BUT Christianity preaches a benighted and outmoded morality.

"I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideas. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstition of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark" (p. 94).

d. Christianity attacks the family by dragging women to the cloister
BUT Christianity forces marriage and the family upon us.

e. Christianity shows contempt for women's intellect
BUT Christianity is such that in Europe "only women" follow it.

f. Christianity is reproachable because of its pomp and ritualism
BUT Christianity is reproachable because of its sackcloth and dried peas.

g. Christianity restrains sexuality too much
BUT Christianity does not restrain sexuality enough.

h. Christianity is primly respectable
BUT Christianity is religiously extravagant.

i. Christianity is too disunified
BUT Christianity is too monolithic.

C's conclusion at that point was not that Christianity is true, but simply that it must be very odd to be wrong in all these ways at once. There are just two possibilities: either Christianity is a very odd shape or the critics themselves are odd in many opposed ways. (p. 97).

[Tycho]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46755#post46755)
Socrates:

Tycho

I was distilling the essential points to show that Winace was contradicting himself in his desperate attempt to discredit creation. I don't expect the logic-impaired among us to understand.
Clearly you don't. What you did may be quote mining, which is dishonest in the extreme. WinAce explanes more here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46068#post46068) .

It brings up a point that G.K. Chesterton brought up as to why the anti-christians helped turn him towards Christianity.
Wow, G.K. Chesterton has some major problems with projection. Anyway, who cares? Are you capable of presenting a scientific theory of creationism, or will be persist in presenting your laughable insults and little else?

[Bald Ape]

<splutter>
Socrates,

I'm having a problem with the link you gave in response to QED's point. QED claimed that the universe couldn't be shown to be 10,000 years old or less. The context of your link implied that it refuted QED's point. However, the link is to a page which lists two creationist models (Created light, and Decaying speed of light), and then argues why they are flawed. Then, as an alternative, they present Dr. Russel Humphrey's model, which is not only utterly flawed (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/trap.shtml?main), but also acknowleges a universe with galaxies that are billions of years old. Nothing, absolutely nothing in your link refutes QED's assetion that the universe is older than 10,000 years. So why did you post it?
</splutter>

[OckhamsRazor]

Definition:

Naturalism (philosophy), in philosophy (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574677/Philosophy_Western.html), a movement affirming that nature is the whole of reality and can be understood only through scientific investigation. Denying the existence of the supernatural and de-emphasizing metaphysics (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555386/Metaphysics.html), or the study of the ultimate nature of reality, naturalism affirms that cause-and-effect relationships, as in physics and chemistry, are sufficient to account for all phenomena. Teleological conceptions, which suggest design and metaphysical necessity in nature, while not necessarily invalid, are excluded from consideration. The ethical implication, since the naturalist denies any transcendent or supernatural end for humankind, is that values must be found within the social context. It is impossible to determine what is best in an ultimate context, because the ultimate is beyond discovery. Values, therefore, are relative, and ethics (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555614/Ethics.html) is based on custom, inclination, or some form of utilitarianism (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574664/Utilitarianism.html), the doctrine that what is useful is good.

Naturalism is rooted in British empiricism (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554946/Empiricism.html), which holds that all knowledge is derived from experience, and in European positivism (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563139/Positivism.html), the doctrine that denies any validity to metaphysical speculation. It reached its peak in the late 19th- and 20th-century works of the American philosophers George Santayana (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560883/Santayana_George.html), John Dewey (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566854/Dewey_John.html), and their followers.

source: http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568328/Naturalism_(philosophy).html



One of the people greatly responsible for developing falsification as a criteria for demarkation between science and metaphysics was Karl Popper. Karl Popper rejected Naturalism as a part of the method of science because is a metaphysical claim in and of it self as the above makes clear if you read it carefully. It makes a judgement about the whole of reality and is not able to be falsified. Karl Popper excluded the inclusion of metaphysics as a part of science. He also rejected theism as a part of science. ID does not assert that God is the designer as a deduction from the facts. ID cannot do so because it is an inductive theory. ID does not use the concept of God as a part of the tools they use for investigation. To come to the the conclusion that there is a God is something that can be inferred from ID.


“As a theory of biological origins and development,intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explains the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from undirected natural causes.” ID is limited to the study of the signs of intelligence in the natural world and does not attempt to study the mind of the designer. Again, according to Dembski: “Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. But the designer’s thought process lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.” So how do ID researchers determine if something is designed? Dembski coined the term specified complexity to define the characteristic trademark or signature of an intelligent causer. An item is considered designed, rather than a product of blind natural processes and chance, if it passes through his Explanatory Filter of contingency, complexity and specification. In other words, the item must be: (1) contingent (as in not necessary–necessary as a dropped ball will fall to earth due to gravity), (2) complex or highly improbable (Dembski uses a universal probability bound of 10150) and (3) exhibit an independently given pattern or specification.
(source: http://www.reasons.org/chapters/sea...0410/200410.pdf (http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200410/200410.pdf)
go down on the pdf one page to "What ID Is And Isn't".

[FreezBee]

One of the people greatly responsible for developing falsification as a criteria for demarkation between science and metaphysics was Karl Popper. Karl Popper rejected Naturalism as a part of the method of science because is a metaphysical claim in and of it self as the above makes clear if you read it carefully. It makes a judgement about the whole of reality and is not able to be falsified. Karl Popper excluded the inclusion of metaphysics as a part of science.

Not so fast, OckhamsRazor. What counted as "metaphysics" for Popper is any self-contained theory; that is, any theory that interprets data in such a way to confirm itself. However, Popper's critique of positivism is actually of more interest. The logical positivists entertained the idea of an elementary observation supposedly free of any interpretation. Popper claimed that such an observation doesn't exist. We cannot simply observe - we need to observe something, not simply anything. That is, theories are prior to observations, not their effects.


He also rejected theism as a part of science. ID does not assert that God is the designer as a deduction from the facts. ID cannot do so because it is an inductive theory. ID does not use the concept of God as a part of the tools they use for investigation.

Well, not explicitly, but the concept of God is lurking in the background. It's clear enough, which result they want to obtain. Not that I see anything wromg in that, it's the way the IDists go around that I find wrong, and why I consider ID both improper science and improper theology.


To come to the the conclusion that there is a God is something that can be inferred from ID.

But you need to establish the occurence of ID first, don't you?


- FreezBee