Msn

[rogero]

In my several months of lurking and occasionally posting in the Science Building threads of TWeb, I've learned that Young Earth Creationists either don't understand or don't accept (or at least don't recognize) a difference between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical (aka Ontological or Metaphysical) Naturalism. I was wondering if I could be so bold as to propose an alternative (or simply give a name to the YEC's apparent view) to these philosophies of science -- namely MSN, or Methodological SuperNaturalism.

I was wondering if creationists, or more specifically YECs, could flesh out the MSN philosophy for me, specifically regarding how they think Science should be carried out by such philosophy. I think I understand their distinction between Operational and Origins science. I don't agree with such distinction, since I'm one of those Christians who have been blinded by the Zeitgeist and accept Methodological Naturalism as the way science is supposed to be done. But, as Dennis Miller sez, "this is just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Believe it or not, I'm really not trying to be facietious here. I really want to know how scientific investigation would be different under the MSN philosophy. This philosophical point seems to be the crucial issue in the creation/evolution debates.

If such a discussion has been had before, please direct me to that thread. Thanks!


In God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Here is a weblink, recently posted in another Natural Science thread, that was the impetus for me to start this thread. It seems to be mainly a discussion of the philosophy of science, and, supposedly, how the evolutionists have made Naturalism a religion.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

[learning]

The only difference i could see, is that a christian scientist would use the same methods of natural science, but ask God to guide them.
Now, are you talking about something different? About God interferring in creation? He would, in my opinion, and I think that of C.S. Lewis, not change His natural laws, but sort of suspend or jump into them a bit. Like when he fed the 5,000 with the loaves and fishes. By the way, I'm not YEC, but OEC, but not sure where I come in there. I kinda include a bit of evolution in my OEC, but not sure where to begin, or end.

[rogero]

The only difference i could see, is that a christian scientist would use the same methods of natural science, but ask God to guide them.
Now, are you talking about something different? About God interferring in creation? He would, in my opinion, and I think that of C.S. Lewis, not change His natural laws, but sort of suspend or jump into them a bit. Like when he fed the 5,000 with the loaves and fishes. By the way, I'm not YEC, but OEC, but not sure where I come in there. I kinda include a bit of evolution in my OEC, but not sure where to begin, or end.

Well, if seeking God's guidance before and during research is the only difference, then that should be no problem for anybody. But, I don't think that's what they mean. Would an MSN's research methods -- collecting data in particular -- be any different than an MN's (methodological naturalist's?) Or is the difference only in the conclusion?

[trueseeker]

In my several months of lurking and occasionally posting in the Science Building threads of TWeb, I've learned that Young Earth Creationists either don't understand or don't accept (or at least don't recognize) a difference between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical (aka Ontological or Metaphysical) Naturalism. I was wondering if I could be so bold as to propose an alternative (or simply give a name to the YEC's apparent view) to these philosophies of science -- namely MSN, or Methodological SuperNaturalism.

I was wondering if creationists, or more specifically YECs, could flesh out the MSN philosophy for me, specifically regarding how they think Science should be carried out by such philosophy. I think I understand their distinction between Operational and Origins science. I don't agree with such distinction, since I'm one of those Christians who have been blinded by the Zeitgeist and accept Methodological Naturalism as the way science is supposed to be done. But, as Dennis Miller sez, "this is just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Believe it or not, I'm really not trying to be facietious here. I really want to know how scientific investigation would be different under the MSN philosophy. This philosophical point seems to be the crucial issue in the creation/evolution debates.

If such a discussion has been had before, please direct me to that thread. Thanks!


In God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Here is a weblink, recently posted in another Natural Science thread, that was the impetus for me to start this thread. It seems to be mainly a discussion of the philosophy of science, and, supposedly, how the evolutionists have made Naturalism a religion.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Roger,

Be careful, how you use MSN, the MicroSoft secret police, might show up to your place in the middle of the night.

Your question is right on the money, the answer is much harder to come by. Unfortunately, the hypothesis, ends up being the conclusion in the origins area of science.

When you start with a YEC hypothesis, you try to fit all the facts into it. Obviously, none of us knows how everything originated, so it is mostly guess work. Many of the guesses prove to be incorrect, some even stupid. But those of us who have a YEC perspective think the majority of the facts are explainable in this context.

When you start with a naturalist hypothesis, that everything originated by natural processes. You try to explain all the facts so they fit into that model.

Some think this hypothesis explains the majority of the facts, and believe naturalism correct.

Some think this hypothesis explains things fairly well, but there had to have been supernatural help for some of these natural processes to get over certain hurdles, thus -TE.

Some think this hypothesis explains things fairly well, but it has to lead into the Bible somehow, thus -OEC.

Some think since the more common view of OEC (not all OEC's) is that creation through the tower of Babel is parable, cuts important doctrine out of the Bible which should be taken literally. So now there is PC (progressive creation), God created different things over ages, eventually creating a literal garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve.

Personally, I don't think it is incorrect to start with any hypothesis for origins. But I do think it is wrong to state that the theory is proven fact. Naturalism is far from fact, it has huge unexplainable holes in it. And just because the facts would have to fit it this spot or that spot if naturalism is true, doesn't make it a fact that they happened that way or in those time frames. It is only one possibility that things happened in the way and time frames they would have needed to for naturalism to be true.

[rogero]

Roger,

Be careful, how you use MSN, the MicroSoft secret police, might show up to your place in the middle of the night.

Your question is right on the money, the answer is much harder to come by. Unfortunately, the hypothesis, ends up being the conclusion in the origins area of science.

When you start with a YEC hypothesis, you try to fit all the facts into it. Obviously, none of us knows how everything originated, so it is mostly guess work. Many of the guesses prove to be incorrect, some even stupid. But those of us who have a YEC perspective think the majority of the facts are explainable in this context.

When you start with a naturalist hypothesis, that everything originated by natural processes. You try to explain all the facts so they fit into that model.

Some think this hypothesis explains the majority of the facts, and believe naturalism correct.

Some think this hypothesis explains things fairly well, but there had to have been supernatural help for some of these natural processes to get over certain hurdles, thus -TE.

Some think this hypothesis explains things fairly well, but it has to lead into the Bible somehow, thus -OEC.

Some think since the more common view of OEC (not all OEC's) is that creation through the tower of Babel is parable, cuts important doctrine out of the Bible which should be taken literally. So now there is PC (progressive creation), God created different things over ages, eventually creating a literal garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve.

Personally, I don't think it is incorrect to start with any hypothesis for origins. But I do think it is wrong to state that the theory is proven fact. Naturalism is far from fact, it has huge unexplainable holes in it. And just because the facts would have to fit it this spot or that spot if naturalism is true, doesn't make it a fact that they happened that way or in those time frames. It is only one possibility that things happened in the way and time frames they would have needed to for naturalism to be true.

TS,

I appreciate your reply. It seems that you're conflating observation, philosophy, theology, and interpretation. To stay focused on my main point, how is scientific research supposed to be carried out differently under MSN (thanks for the copyright warning - ) than under MN?

I really don't mean interpretation. Should data be sought out in different areas? Should certain geographic regions be emphasized or avoided? In a recent thread there was a discussion about whether NASA should be wasting tax dollars looking for life on Mars. Even though I'm at a loss as to how an orthodox interpretation of the Bible would preclude life on other worlds, assuming that this is a precept of MSN (I sure hope not!), would this mean that, were MSNers running the project, certain chemical tests not be included on the Mars probes because they'd be a waste of resources? As a recall one particular post, there was a conflation made between NASA's wastefulness and the price of a gallon of gas (was it because it's way too cheap in the U.S.?) I dunno, this is the kind of rhetoric that confuses me.

God's Peace,

Roger

[grmorton]

Well, if seeking God's guidance before and during research is the only difference, then that should be no problem for anybody. But, I don't think that's what they mean. Would an MSN's research methods -- collecting data in particular -- be any different than an MN's (methodological naturalist's?) Or is the difference only in the conclusion?

This was one of the philosophical issues which caused me to doubt whether YEC was true. When I looked at the Green River formation, I realized that regardless of whether one was a yec, oec, agnostic or atheist, one could see a widespread deposit with very fine layers made of alternating layers of sappropel and carbonate. Then I realized that regardless of whether one was a yec or not, one could count 13 million layers (6.5 million couplets). Philosophy played no role in the above determinations. And neither does it play a role in the fact that running a Fourier transform on the layer thicknesses finds a 24 layer (12 couplet) cyclicity, a 40,000 layer (20,000 couplet) cyclicity and a 200,000 layer (100,000 couplet cyclicity).
One can drill a deep well throught the Green River formation and regardless of whether one is a YEC, an OEC or an atheist (or buddhist or anamist), one can see that there is about 28,000 feet of sediment below the Green River formation.

Now, only at this point does philosophy come into play. How does one explain these philosophy-less observations? The evolutionist can say that the 12 couplet cycle is the solar cycle; the 20,000 couplet cyclicity is the precession of the equinoxes, and the 100,000 couplet cyclicity is due to variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. They can then fit these observations into the concept that this was a lake deposit in which the carbonate and sappropel were a bi-yearly deposit.

Now, what can the YEC say about these observations which involve no philosophy? When I was a YEC, I believed that the flood was gobal, so how did I explain the 12 couplet cycle? What happened during that part of the flood to cause a 12 couplet cycle? It can't be the solar cycle because the flood was only one year. And since the Green River formation occupies only about 1/9th of the entire local column and so it must be something that happened only during the latter part of the flood because 28,000 feet of sediment had already been laid down. But since the flood is not repeatable, and we can't observe its processes going on today, as we can with river deposition, lake deposition, marine deposition, etc, we have no analogues with which to decide what that 12 couple cyclicity means. And that leaves the 12 couplet cyclicity forever unexplained and unexplainable. This line of reasoning applies to everything that happened in the flood and every observation of the Green River formation, which is why I believe the MSN is nothing but a means of avoiding all explanations.

[rogero]

Just another couple of notes/comments on your post, TS (thanks again for your input!)

.

Some think since the more common view of OEC (not all OEC's) is that creation through the tower of Babel is parable, cuts important doctrine out of the Bible which should be taken literally. So now there is PC (progressive creation), God created different things over ages, eventually creating a literal garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve.

I'm glad you used the phrase "the more common view", which is definitely not the only view of OEC Genesis interpretation. I'm not even sure if it's the more common view since I've never seen polling data -- just lots of empty rhetoric. That data would be interesting, even though not related in any way to the OP.

Personally, I don't think it is incorrect to start with any hypothesis for origins. But I do think it is wrong to state that the theory is proven fact. Naturalism is far from fact, it has huge unexplainable holes in it. And just because the facts would have to fit it this spot or that spot if naturalism is true, doesn't make it a fact that they happened that way or in those time frames. It is only one possibility that things happened in the way and time frames they would have needed to for naturalism to be true.

Just a few clarifications of definitions of term as used in Scientific Method. 1) An "hypothesis" is a testable statement. If data don't fit the hypothesis then the hypothesis is modified or discarded. If one's hypothesis is YEC, then I don't see modification or rejection when empirical data seem contradictory. Actually "YEC" wouldn't even be an hypothesis in this sense, but more of a worldview. I have seen evolutionary theory respond quite fluidly to new data. It's interesting that "anti-evolutionists" use this fluidity as a polemic against it. If evolutionists didn't respond fluidly, then its opponents would attack that as well.

2) "Fact" is not an appropriate word to use when describing a philosophy. In scientific method, a "fact" has a very specific meaning -- a physical empirical observation, or (perhaps) a rule of nature.

3) "Theories" are never "proven", in fact scientists should be extremely careful using the words "prove" or "proof". Generally the observed data ("facts") either "support" or do "not support" an hypothesis. "Proof" implies 100% certainty, which is not possible in Scientific (or Inductive) Method. Real scientists are never 100% certain, hence never use the P-word (unless of course they are acting like non-scientific rhetoricians engaging in a heated polemical debate. ) After all, we could all be brains in jars and all reality is an illusion -- not likely, but not a zero probability either -- based strictly on observation.

[rogero]

This was one of the philosophical issues which caused me to doubt whether YEC was true. When I looked at the Green River formation, I realized that regardless of whether one was a yec, oec, agnostic or atheist, one could see a widespread deposit with very fine layers made of alternating layers of sappropel and carbonate. Then I realized that regardless of whether one was a yec or not, one could count 13 million layers (6.5 million couplets). Philosophy played no role in the above determinations. And neither does it play a role in the fact that running a Fourier transform on the layer thicknesses finds a 24 layer (12 couplet) cyclicity, a 40,000 layer (20,000 couplet) cyclicity and a 200,000 layer (100,000 couplet cyclicity).
One can drill a deep well throught the Green River formation and regardless of whether one is a YEC, an OEC or an atheist (or buddhist or anamist), one can see that there is about 28,000 feet of sediment below the Green River formation.

Now, only at this point does philosophy come into play. How does one explain these philosophy-less observations? The evolutionist can say that the 12 couplet cycle is the solar cycle; the 20,000 couplet cyclicity is the precession of the equinoxes, and the 100,000 couplet cyclicity is due to variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. They can then fit these observations into the concept that this was a lake deposit in which the carbonate and sappropel were a bi-yearly deposit.

Now, what can the YEC say about these observations which involve no philosophy? When I was a YEC, I believed that the flood was gobal, so how did I explain the 12 couplet cycle? What happened during that part of the flood to cause a 12 couplet cycle? It can't be the solar cycle because the flood was only one year. And since the Green River formation occupies only about 1/9th of the entire local column and so it must be something that happened only during the latter part of the flood because 28,000 feet of sediment had already been laid down. But since the flood is not repeatable, and we can't observe its processes going on today, as we can with river deposition, lake deposition, marine deposition, etc, we have no analogues with which to decide what that 12 couple cyclicity means. And that leaves the 12 couplet cyclicity forever unexplained and unexplainable. This line of reasoning applies to everything that happened in the flood and every observation of the Green River formation, which is why I believe the MSN is nothing but a means of avoiding all explanations.

Thanks, Glenn! The Green River Formation data have been collected. Now they must be interpreted. Would MSN have done the data collection any differently? Would there have been some aspect that MN would have overlooked, but MSN included? The cyclic patterns are interesting. Are these interpretation or observation? Perhaps it's unfair to ask an MSNer to interpret these data, since there are so few of them around who are trained in geology.

But still the main point of the OP, would the Green River Fm. been studied (not interpreted!) any differently by MSN?

R

[trueseeker]

TS,

I appreciate your reply. It seems that you're conflating observation, philosophy, theology, and interpretation. To stay focused on my main point, how is scientific research supposed to be carried out differently under MSN (thanks for the copyright warning - ) than under MN?

I really don't mean interpretation. Should data be sought out in different areas? Should certain geographic regions be emphasized or avoided? In a recent thread there was a discussion about whether NASA should be wasting tax dollars looking for life on Mars. Even though I'm at a loss as to how an orthodox interpretation of the Bible would preclude life on other worlds, assuming that this is a precept of MSN (I sure hope not!), would this mean that, were MSNers running the project, certain chemical tests not be included on the Mars probes because they'd be a waste of resources? As a recall one particular post, there was a conflation made between NASA's wastefulness and the price of a gallon of gas (was it because it's way too cheap in the U.S.?) I dunno, this is the kind of rhetoric that confuses me.

God's Peace,

Roger

I'll consider that all our brains are in a jar for a moment, if you will consider our origin to be a crime for a moment. There are numerous suspects, but we will only talk about two for a moment, YEC and Naturalism. If we are really trying to determine who the criminal is, a good scientific investigation would collect the evidence and see if it can fit the suspect. My personal opinion is that it is impossible to have come about by purely natural process. Which you and Glen probably agree with. So instead of naturalism becoming the established scientific theory, it should be eliminated from among the suspects. Although many things look too old to fit into the YEC model, it can't be completely eliminated yet, because God could have created many things with the appearance of age.

I don't understand, not investigating things either.

[trueseeker]

I'm glad you used the phrase "the more common view", which is definitely not the only view of OEC Genesis interpretation. I'm not even sure if it's the more common view since I've never seen polling data -- just lots of empty rhetoric. That data would be interesting, even though not related in any way to the OP.

Perhaps I should have qualified it further to say, 'in my experience it has been the more common view.' I do think the OEC view is evolving.

Just a few clarifications of definitions of term as used in Scientific Method. 1) An "hypothesis" is a testable statement. If data don't fit the hypothesis then the hypothesis is modified or discarded. If one's hypothesis is YEC, then I don't see modification or rejection when empirical data seem contradictory. Actually "YEC" wouldn't even be an hypothesis in this sense, but more of a worldview. I have seen evolutionary theory respond quite fluidly to new data. It's interesting that "anti-evolutionists" use this fluidity as a polemic against it. If evolutionists didn't respond fluidly, then its opponents would attack that as well.

But you wouldn't say that the only scientific view would be that they came into existence naturally about the study of a different structures. And that should be the only scientific criteria for determining their origin, age, time it took to come into existence. How old would the great pyramids of egypt be, for time and chance to bring them into existence? To me the universe is full of complex structures, that are even more obsurb to think happened by natural process.

2) "Fact" is not an appropriate word to use when describing a philosophy. In scientific method, a "fact" has a very specific meaning -- a physical empirical observation, or (perhaps) a rule of nature.

3) "Theories" are never "proven", in fact scientists should be extremely careful using the words "prove" or "proof". Generally the observed data ("facts") either "support" or do "not support" an hypothesis. "Proof" implies 100% certainty, which is not possible in Scientific (or Inductive) Method. Real scientists are never 100% certain, hence never use the P-word (unless of course they are acting like non-scientific rhetoricians engaging in a heated polemical debate. ) After all, we could all be brains in jars and all reality is an illusion -- not likely, but not a zero probability either -- based strictly on observation.

I agree with you. However, their are alot of naturalist scientists out there whose propaganda machine is promoting a godless origins/evolution model as fact. They do have a agenda, and it is causing problems.

[trueseeker]

Thanks, Glenn! The Green River Formation data have been collected. Now they must be interpreted. Would MSN have done the data collection any differently? Would there have been some aspect that MN would have overlooked, but MSN included? The cyclic patterns are interesting. Are these interpretation or observation? Perhaps it's unfair to ask an MSNer to interpret these data, since there are so few of them around who are trained in geology.

But still the main point of the OP, would the Green River Fm. been studied (not interpreted!) any differently by MSN?

R

I don't think that you would need to collect the data differently, the majority of the time. To Glen's credit, I think he is doing what I am suggesting. Taking the data and seeing which model it fits best. He presently is OEC because he thinks the data fits that model the best. And I assume he would switch to whatever, if his perspective became that the data fit into a different model better.

[grmorton]

I don't think that you would need to collect the data differently, the majority of the time. To Glen's credit, I think he is doing what I am suggesting. Taking the data and seeing which model it fits best. He presently is OEC because he thinks the data fits that model the best. And I assume he would switch to whatever, if his perspective became that the data fit into a different model better.

I would comment that I would follow the data where it leads. And it was this process that led me to leave YEC because I never saw any explanations for geologic data coming from the YEC side, the side I preferred, which weren't contradictory or resulted in ignoring other data.

Thanks, Glenn! The Green River Formation data have been collected. Now they must be interpreted. Would MSN have done the data collection any differently? Would there have been some aspect that MN would have overlooked, but MSN included? The cyclic patterns are interesting. Are these interpretation or observation?

The cyclic patterns are observations. They pop out of a Fourier transform of the layer thickness data. For those who don't know, a Fourier analysis is a purely mathematical technique for examining cyclicities in a series of numbers. It doesn't matter what the number represent, high amplitude cyclicities will be found. Thus, the cyclic patterns are observation based upon objective mathematics. What the cyclic patterns represent is interpretation.

Perhaps it's unfair to ask an MSNer to interpret these data, since there are so few of them around who are trained in geology.

But there are so few around trained in physics, astronomy, anthropology chemistry, or even biology. I don't think it unfair to ask for an interpretation because lack of training doesn't stop people from making interpretations all the time. Besides, foirmal training is not a prerequisite for being an expert in a field. Stephen Hawking has had no formal math courses since he was 17 years old, yet few would fail to recognize him as an expert.

But still the main point of the OP, would the Green River Fm. been studied (not interpreted!) any differently by MSN?

I agree. Would MSN do anything differently? I really can't think of anything but since I am no longer an MSN advocate, I will leave definitive statements about it to them.

[rogero]

I'll consider that all our brains are in a jar for a moment, if you will consider our origin to be a crime for a moment. There are numerous suspects, but we will only talk about two for a moment, YEC and Naturalism. If we are really trying to determine who the criminal is, a good scientific investigation would collect the evidence and see if it can fit the suspect. (emphasis added)

Whoa! I sure hope that's not the way a forensic scientist would investigate a crime I would ever be accused of! Again, you're mixing observation and data gathering with interpretation. An "expert witness" in a trial is hired as a apologist for one side in our 'merkin (awful, but not as bad is it could be) "adversarial" system of justice. The EW takes the job of apologist for a particular side, which is clearly different than the job of a unbiased forensic investigator (maybe that's a big problem with our system.)

My personal opinion is that it is impossible to have come about by purely natural process. Which you and Glen probably agree with. So instead of naturalism becoming the established scientific theory, it should be eliminated from among the suspects. Although many things look too old to fit into the YEC model, it can't be completely eliminated yet, because God could have created many things with the appearance of age.

I don't understand, not investigating things either.

I don't want to harp on you too much, because you've been most gracious in your replies, but you've brought up some more terminology problems. "Naturalism" (whatever kind) is a philosophy, not a method. My philosophy on origins is Creation (as I believe Glenn's is.) The gist of your paragraph discusses interpretation, not observation -- so we're slipping sideways from the intent of the OP.

Thanks, and God's Peace,

Roger

[kuboes1831]

The Green River formation is best expalined by rapid deposition due to the rapidly oscillating magmentic field (see R Humphreys). As it was reversing so rapidly it affected the depostion there as that was the North Pole at that time.

[trueseeker]

I don't want to harp on you too much, because you've been most gracious in your replies, but you've brought up some more terminology problems. "Naturalism" (whatever kind) is a philosophy, not a method. My philosophy on origins is Creation (as I believe Glenn's is.) The gist of your paragraph discusses interpretation, not observation -- so we're slipping sideways from the intent of the OP.

Thanks, and God's Peace,

Roger

If you are asking for different methods of observation - I suspect that additional tests of various types might be run in some cases, and that finds which don't fit a naturalism model could be more prominately published.

I understand that you and Glen and many others here at TWeb are OEC. I do not lump TE, OEC or PC with godless naturalism. My concern about having a different origins model than mine which still have God in it, is very small compared to my concern about the propaganda machine of godless naturalism which is infecting our culture.