What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

[Jorge]

There is nothing in ID except wind.

WOW - now there's a profound statement! Catch me, I'm faint.

The ID position is that everything except the designer is designed and the design is made manifest by the designer’s magic because there is no stockpile from which to draw the stuff from which the Universe is made. Therefore it is not even philosophy. It is not even science fiction because there is no science in it. It is a simple pre-scientific idea about the origin of the world now well known to be completely inadequate. It only survives as a nebulous concept in the present age because people like to suck their thumbs and they do not understand the nature of their holy books.

Imagine, if you can, a toddler that was mistakenly given some strong wine instead of grape juice. That toddler has become 'tipsy' and writes a caricature version of ID. The above babbling by firstfloor is just about what that toddler's would write. Other than for mocking, it is good for nothing else. Stick to your day job, 1stflor!

Jorge

[rwatts]

WOW - now there's a profound statement! Catch me, I'm faint.




Imagine, if you can, a toddler that was mistakenly given some strong wine instead of grape juice. That toddler has become 'tipsy' and writes a caricature version of ID. The above babbling by firstfloor is just about what that toddler's would write. Other than for mocking, it is good for nothing else. Stick to your day job, 1stflor!

Jorge

Dunno.

I've had a creationist on facebook over the past few days. I've been explaining to him how nested hierarchies and protein functional redundancy are evidence for common descent with modification. I have explained how they arise naturally and necessarily, given such an underlying process.

He continued to assert that we both look at the same data but have different interpretations. His interpretation is that a common designer did it all.

So I told him that I can assert with as much confidence and with as much evidence that he offered, to show that a common designer would not build in those patterns, but rather he would offer no pattern. I told him that I would provide my evidence for my assertion after he provided his evidence for his assertion.

I am waiting.

On the likely chance that he has no evidence, beyond assertion, would you like to step in and fill the breech, Jorge?

A great chance for you to flesh it out? What if you are ever called into the witness box to defend your claim that ToE is religion?

[Roy]

Note that Jorge doesn't say I am wrong.

We must then conclude that the concept of inference escapes you. I mean, a direct, logically-sound inference from "WOW!!! Your ignorance and sheer stupidity continues to amaze me even to this day." is that your claim is wrong.

An even better direct, logically sound inference is that Jorge is resorting to insult because as usual he has no effective response available.

So, yes indeed, I DID say you are wrong ...

Really? IIRC the reason you gave for space travel being impossible with current scientific knowledge - not diffuclt or dangerous, but impossiblewas that if a craft moving at a speed that would make interstellar travel practical was to encounter an object the impact would release so much energy that the craft would invariably be destroyed, and that the density of objects in interstellar space and the distances involved made such an encounter statistically inevitable. Or, shorthandedly, there are too many rocks in space. You were then ridiculed because not only does this not make space travel impossible, merely dangerous, but there are ways of circumventing the threat that don't require new discoveries, including generation craft and asteroid-based shielding.

But my recollection could be wrong. It could be that I am simply imagining the long series of posts on this topic, including many of my own. It could be that the copies of posts that I have retained that bear on this embarrassing episode are somehow misrepresentative. It could be that you actually did give a different reason originally, but have chosen not to give even the slightest of hint as to what it was despite having had two opportunities to publicly correct me.

Alternatively, you could be displaying a selective memory. Or lying. Again.

Roy

[Jorge]

An even better direct, logically sound inference is that Jorge is resorting to insult because as usual he has no effective response available.
Really? IIRC the reason you gave for space travel being impossible with current scientific knowledge - not diffuclt or dangerous, but impossiblewas that if a craft moving at a speed that would make interstellar travel practical was to encounter an object the impact would release so much energy that the craft would invariably be destroyed, and that the density of objects in interstellar space and the distances involved made such an encounter statistically inevitable. Or, shorthandedly, there are too many rocks in space. You were then ridiculed because not only does this not make space travel impossible, merely dangerous, but there are ways of circumventing the threat that don't require new discoveries, including generation craft and asteroid-based shielding.

But my recollection could be wrong. It could be that I am simply imagining the long series of posts on this topic, including many of my own. It could be that the copies of posts that I have retained that bear on this embarrassing episode are somehow misrepresentative. It could be that you actually did give a different reason originally, but have chosen not to give even the slightest of hint as to what it was despite having had two opportunities to publicly correct me.

Alternatively, you could be displaying a selective memory. Or lying. Again.

Roy

Okay, I'll concede your admission, highlighted above. Your recollection is indeed faulty in more than one way - it is incomplete, inaccurate and a caricature of reality. At least you were honest enough to admit the possibility -- you're moving in the right direction for a change. Keep it up!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

An even better direct, logically sound inference is that Jorge is resorting to insult because as usual he has no effective response available.

Jorge generally has little of substance to say. Certainly based on his replies in this thread, your inference is the only possible conclusion based on the data available (even if we include the data from the previous incarnation of TWEB - but proof of that is currently impossible)

I do find it informative that Jorge blames his failure to present a coherent argument on the 'dishonesty' or 'unteachability' of others. And I intend to look closely at a very specific example to help illuminate that claim in the not too distant future. However, it would seem somewhat obvious that if one has made some sort of valid case some time in the past and that somehow those who disagree with him are being 'dishonest' about the quality of his 'work', all he would need to do is produce said argument as irrefutable evidence for the validity of his claim.

The fact he does not produce a valid, coherent argument, either de novo or from his own archives, but rather simply claims we are all being dishonest in our representations of his former work is again very strong evidence it is his words which are the ones in error, and in fact, dishonest.


Jim

[klaus54]

There is nothing in ID except wind. The ID position is that everything except the designer is designed and the design is made manifest by the designer’s magic because there is no stockpile from which to draw the stuff from which the Universe is made. Therefore it is not even philosophy. It is not even science fiction because there is no science in it. It is a simple pre-scientific idea about the origin of the world now well known to be completely inadequate. It only survives as a nebulous concept in the present age because people like to suck their thumbs and they do not understand the nature of their holy books.

Yes. In other words, ID is unfalsifable, therefore not a scientific hypothesis.

K54

[klaus54]

Good heavens, just how ignorant are you about these things, Santa?

What I mean is, to say the things that you wrote above you must either be,

(1) totally ignorant of ID and BSC ... OR

(2) you are not ignorant - you know ID and BSC well - but you're not honest.

I cannot think of another alternative. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll believe that it's (1) but you're not doing anything to help me retain that belief.

Jorge

Jorge,

Show me a falsifiable hypothesis stemming from ID or BSC.

Thanks!

K54

[klaus54]

Preposterous misrepresentation of reality.

Clearly you haven't a c-l-u-e about these matters thus explaining your blind opposition to ID.

Jorge

Jorge's batting streak of content-less post remains unbroken. He's still batting 1.000!

K54

[klaus54]

Dunno.

I've had a creationist on facebook over the past few days. I've been explaining to him how nested hierarchies and protein functional redundancy are evidence for common descent with modification. I have explained how they arise naturally and necessarily, given such an underlying process.

He continued to assert that we both look at the same data but have different interpretations. His interpretation is that a common designer did it all.

So I told him that I can assert with as much confidence and with as much evidence that he offered, to show that a common designer would not build in those patterns, but rather he would offer no pattern. I told him that I would provide my evidence for my assertion after he provided his evidence for his assertion.

I am waiting.

On the likely chance that he has no evidence, beyond assertion, would you like to step in and fill the breech, Jorge?

A great chance for you to flesh it out? What if you are ever called into the witness box to defend your claim that ToE is religion?

A "common designer" is a cop-out. Who or what is the designer? How is this any different than "God did it" or "Omphalos" or even the pre-science atheist "It just is"?

No testability, no falsifiablity. It explains everything, and therefore explains nothing.

K54

[klaus54]

You either do have a comprehension handicap of the type that I inquired about or you simply aren't an honest person, Santa. What part of my reply did you not grasp ...

"I've more-than-adequately presented what I mean by Biblical Creationist and why I prefer that term over YEC. I've also differentiated between three items and explained why: operational science, historical science and "science" falsely-so-called (i.e., ideology under the guise of science). Therefore, I have no idea what you are ranting above here."

At least be honest and acknowledge that I have supplied what you requested only that you are unable or unwilling to grasp / accept what I've supplied. That would be a good first step.

Jorge

Ha, the old creationist gem of distorting the archaic translation of "science" from the AJKV1611!

St. Paul is NOT referring to "science" in the modern sense but rather is stating a polemic against the gnostic heresy.

Boy, Jorge -- you are the complete package. Do you do a road tour?

K54

P.S. BTW, the "ideology under the guise of science" is called "Scientific Method." And guess what? It works!

[rogue06]

Preposterous misrepresentation of reality.

Clearly you haven't a c-l-u-e about these matters thus explaining your blind opposition to ID.

Jorge

You of course can demonstrate that any of those quotes misrepresents what they said, right?

The simple fact is that even a number of leading ID advocates recognize that it isn't a scientific theory (explaining why Behe seeks to radically change the definition of what is and isn't a scientific theory).

[rogue06]

Ha, the old creationist gem of distorting the archaic translation of "science" from the AJKV1611!

St. Paul is NOT referring to "science" in the modern sense but rather is stating a polemic against the gnostic heresy.

Boy, Jorge -- you are the complete package. Do you do a road tour?

K54

The "science falsely so-called" shtick is even something that the leading YEC organizations caution their more gullible and less bright followers to avoid.

For instance, on AnswersinGenesis' (AiG) "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" webpage they list "The phrase 'science falsely so called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" as #3 among their "Common misconceptions/misunderstandings."

Over at Creation Ministries International's (CMI) their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" page lists it in the "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" section with an explanation:

Source: The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution

To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.

© Copyright Original Source

They continue on to say that while they "believe that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation" that "it is wrong to use fallacious arguments" in support of their viewpoint.

And the more strident Creationwiki also places the claim that "The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" on their "Arguments creationists should not use" page as well, as #21 in the "Should Not Be Used" section simply stating "The word translated 'science' actually means 'knowledge' and the verse is referring to Gnosticism."

[klaus54]

The "science falsely so-called" shtick is even something that the leading YEC organizations caution their more gullible and less bright followers to avoid.

For instance, on AnswersinGenesis' (AiG) "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" webpage they list "The phrase 'science falsely so called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" as #3 among their "Common misconceptions/misunderstandings."

Over at Creation Ministries International's (CMI) their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" page lists it in the "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" section with an explanation:

Source: The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution

To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.

© Copyright Original Source

They continue on to say that while they "believe that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation" that "it is wrong to use fallacious arguments" in support of their viewpoint.

And the more strident Creationwiki also places the claim that "The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" on their "Arguments creationists should not use" page as well, as #21 in the "Should Not Be Used" section simply stating "The word translated 'science' actually means 'knowledge' and the verse is referring to Gnosticism."

R, good work on digging up this information. So, Jorge isn't even up on the latest allowable rhetoric?

BTW, the red highlighted text is fascinating. Why don't YECs apply that same exegesis to the Genesis stories? Curious...

Thanks!

K54

[rwatts]

A "common designer" is a cop-out. Who or what is the designer? How is this any different than "God did it" or "Omphalos" or even the pre-science atheist "It just is"?

No testability, no falsifiablity. It explains everything, and therefore explains nothing.

K54

Indeed.

I figure that if he can argue by assertion, namely asserting what the common designer can do, then so can I.

Hence, if he can assert that the existence of similar characteristics is evidence of a common designer, because that's how supernatural common designers work, then I can assert that supernatural common designers don't work that way. Hence similar characteristics is evidence of an underlying natural process, not a supernatural one.

He has no more evidence than I have as to what supernatural designers would or would not do. We both have none.

On the other hand, we do have a lot of evidence and knowledge as to what natural processes can do and cannot do.


I think the facebook conversation is coming to an end. It was reasonably polite, although the "you are without excuse" bible verses are starting to be employed. Then I simply point out that quoting 2,000 year old assertions is hardly a credible way of arguing.


The tragedy always is that these folk don't understand any of the arguments. They seem to think that because they have a particular belief about the Bible and am guided by God, then they are wiser than all others, and that should be enough.

Jorge does not understand any of the arguments. Well, he's never shown any evidence that he does.

[oxmixmudd]

The "science falsely so-called" shtick is even something that the leading YEC organizations caution their more gullible and less bright followers to avoid.

For instance, on AnswersinGenesis' (AiG) "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" webpage they list "The phrase 'science falsely so called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" as #3 among their "Common misconceptions/misunderstandings."

Over at Creation Ministries International's (CMI) their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" page lists it in the "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" section with an explanation:

Source: The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution

To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.

© Copyright Original Source

They continue on to say that while they "believe that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation" that "it is wrong to use fallacious arguments" in support of their viewpoint.

And the more strident Creationwiki also places the claim that "The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution" on their "Arguments creationists should not use" page as well, as #21 in the "Should Not Be Used" section simply stating "The word translated 'science' actually means 'knowledge' and the verse is referring to Gnosticism."

I must admit, I had no idea Jorge's use of "science falsely so called" was in fact a derivative of a certain translation of scripture. I use the NASV and my familiarity with the AKJV is mostly through music or the more traditional texts. Poor Jorge.


Jim