Continuing Challenge to Creationists

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

I see the scientific method as a logical sequence of events that should occur when you're doing research. It's not rocket science. There's no deep, philosophical meaning to it. It's just a common sense way of approaching research.

Well, that is profoundly, indeed gravely mistaken.

So as long as I can't answer your question, perhaps you can describe what your answer would be if the same question were put to you.

Is that an 'I give up'?

I should say the premises underpinning the scientific method are empirical and inductive. To wit,

• That reality can be known.
  
  
• That our perceptions are derived from an external physical reality.
  
  
• That our brains produce accurate or at least reliable models of this reality.
  
  
• That our memories are reliable.
  
  
• That induction is a reliable way of arriving at the truth.
  
  
• That scientific laws are universal.

Which of these premises would you regard as proven?

None of them. Because science is pragmatic. It doesn't care what the outcome is as long as it can be tested and verified. Empirical observation is self evident. Inductive reasoning is simply a process like the scientific method. The certainty of any outcome will at best always be asymptotic because there are no absolutes. The state of a system will always have a probability distribution particularly in large systems which involve stochastic processes. Biological systems are non-deterministic i.e. the outcomes will always have some degree of uncertainty. When someone asks me "what is the truth" about some particular thing in science, I always respond that there is no "truth". There are only testable results. Either they are good and useful or bad and they go into file 13. The scientific method has no interest in any particular result as long as that result is verifiable. It's not complicated.

The "reality" you speak of leaves open the door to opinion which should play no part in data analysis.
And there is no absolute "truth" - in anything, not just science. There are no absolutes in this universe.

Science is an on-going process. The door always remains open to new knowledge regardless how spectacular the results of any single experiment.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Very well stated, a star for you.

I just want to say I wish we had more evolutionists like you on ATS and less like Barcs, it would make for much more reasonable discussions overall. But realize this, you are a threat to his ilk.

I gave him a star as well. It's a very interesting post. It was well worded and offered a possible explanation as to how they might be connected, which is far more than any creationist or science denier has ever done in response to that.

You may not realize this, but he wasn't disagreeing with me. He was talking about how we might one day discover a connection between abiogenesis and evolution, which ties into why he included it in the database he is constructing. He may be right, but thus far we haven't found it.

I know you don't like me because I frequently call out your misunderstandings about science, but the facts are the facts. He isn't a threat to me, we are on the same page although I admit that he is much more knowledgeable than me.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Very well stated, a star for you.

I just want to say I wish we had more evolutionists like you on ATS and less like Barcs, it would make for much more reasonable discussions overall. But realize this, you are a threat to his ilk.

I gave him a star as well. It's a very interesting post. It was well worded and offered a possible explanation as to how they might be connected, which is far more than any creationist or science denier has ever done in response to that.

You may not realize this, but he wasn't disagreeing with me. He was talking about how we might one day discover a connection between abiogenesis and evolution, which ties into why he included it in the database he is constructing. He may be right, but thus far we haven't found it.

I know you don't like me because I frequently call out your misunderstandings about science, but the facts are the facts. He isn't a threat to me, we are on the same page although I admit that he is much more knowledgeable than me.

Absolutely correct, Barcs. Only one correction: The HE is actually a SHE!

originally posted by: Astyanax

I should say the premises underpinning the scientific method are empirical and inductive. To wit,

That our perceptions are derived from an external physical reality.

That our brains produce accurate or at least reliable models of this reality.

That our memories are reliable.

That induction is a reliable way of arriving at the truth.

That scientific laws are universal.

Which of these premises would you regard as proven?

Science, via the scientific method, is only an approximation of the true objective reality. It is not, and can not be, possible for subjective entities to know what the actual objective reality is. Observations are compared to others, and a consensus is derived until that consensus is challenged, and replaced by yet another consensus. Hence "peer reviewed"

Are our perceptions of reality accurate, or reliable? Well, they seem reasonable enough to allow us to survive within the microcosm we find ourselves in. Can we say that our experience of reality, for which empiricism firmly rests, is the same as a boids or bees? Our observations are not everything.

We are only as good as our conceptions and language (meaning) will take us. The sun is not the sun, and humans are not humans; chemicals, quantum mechanics and gravity are all our labels for things that we can detect or think we can detect.

So where does that leave us in this debate?

a reply to: Phantom423

I am certain we are created, no way am I an evolutionary species.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Astyanax

I should say the premises underpinning the scientific method are empirical and inductive. To wit,

That our perceptions are derived from an external physical reality.

That our brains produce accurate or at least reliable models of this reality.

That our memories are reliable.

That induction is a reliable way of arriving at the truth.

That scientific laws are universal.

Which of these premises would you regard as proven?

Science, via the scientific method, is only an approximation of the true objective reality. It is not, and can not be, possible for subjective entities to know what the actual objective reality is. Observations are compared to others, and a consensus is derived until that consensus is challenged, and replaced by yet another consensus. Hence "peer reviewed"

Are our perceptions of reality accurate, or reliable? Well, they seem reasonable enough to allow us to survive within the microcosm we find ourselves in. Can we say that our experience of reality, for which empiricism firmly rests, is the same as a boids or bees? Our observations are not everything.

We are only as good as our conceptions and language (meaning) will take us. The sun is not the sun, and humans are not humans; chemicals, quantum mechanics and gravity are all our labels for things that we can detect or think we can detect.

So where does that leave us in this debate?

None of them. Because science is pragmatic. It doesn't care what the outcome is as long as it can be tested and verified. Empirical observation is self evident. Inductive reasoning is simply a process like the scientific method. The certainty of any outcome will at best always be asymptotic because there are no absolutes. The state of a system will always have a probability distribution particularly in large systems which involve stochastic processes. Biological systems are non-deterministic i.e. the outcomes will always have some degree of uncertainty. When someone asks me "what is the truth" about some particular thing in science, I always respond that there is no "truth". There are only testable results. Either they are good and useful or bad and they go into file 13. The scientific method has no interest in any particular result as long as that result is verifiable. It's not complicated.
The "reality" you speak of leaves open the door to opinion which should play no part in data analysis.
And there is no absolute "truth" - in anything, not just science. There are no absolutes in this universe.

Science is an on-going process. The door always remains open to new knowledge regardless how spectacular the results of any single experiment.

You are correct about approximations. Newtonian or classical mechanics are highly accurate (or else engineers could never build anything), but the calculations are still approximations. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian mechanics is not useful for our purposes.

We have to accept that in this universe at least, there are no absolutes. That you can't know an absolute "truth" or an absolute certainty. It simply isn't possible. But our calculations are sufficient to build bridges, buildings, fly airplanes - it seems to be enough to manage our world. Right now anyway.

Perceptions are just that - perceptions. That's why we have mathematics to test perceptions in a way that can tell us whether the "perception" has any legs.

At least in this universe, we are gifted with mathematics. No one knows why but without it, we couldn't figure out even the most fundamental things. A camel crossing the Sahara desert moves at the rate of 1 mile per hour. The desert is 2000 miles wide. How long does it take the camel to cross the desert? (of course ruling out all the variables here - just an example). Basic stuff but it applies across the board.

Some of these questions simply don't have an answer. Maybe they will some day. But right now we have observation and analytical methods to at least get us to a workable point.

a reply to: Phantom423

None of them.

Full marks for this response.

Because science is pragmatic.

That, I am afraid, is again wrong. The impossibility of verifying these premises is not due to science. They are due to a fundamental uncertainty about our knowledge of reality which science cannot address, and they mean that no scientific process can ever result in certainty about anything.

The "reality" you speak of leaves open the door to opinion which should play no part in data analysis.

We have a long, long way to go before we can even begin to invoke 'data analysis' in this argument.

And there is no absolute "truth" - in anything, not just science. There are no absolutes in this universe.

Precisely. So, as PhotonEffect intelligently asks, where does that leave us in the debate?

Can you still use science to prove that the proposition that life on Earth was created by a divine entity is wrong?

Is it me or number of people believing in creationist claims on ATS has dropped?!

I remember live discussions here on ATS in regards to creation myth, but now whole forum is kind of dead with overwhelming evidence being found on daily bases that points to evolution.

Interesting time we live in...

a reply to: SuperFrog

Is it me or number of people believing in creationist claims on ATS has dropped?!

I have been here almost 9 years and yes there has been a huge drop off, some posters moved on they don't even post on ATS anymore at all, not just on this topic. But the evolutionists have done an excellent job of spreading their message on ATS, they are excellent lawyers in making their case, intelligent and well researched, BUT just because a lawyer is all those things doesn't mean their client is right or innocent.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

I greatly appreciate the mockery of your username. Indeed, you might call me a fan.

Here's a simple definition of a premise. A more exhaustive discussion can be found here.

i dont like fans, i like friends.

my second attempt would look like this: "misusing/misrepresenting science is intellectually dishonest, and creationism misuses/misrepresents science, therefore creationism is intellectually dishonest."

that is the premise here i believe. and the subsequent debate would be to examine the merits of that claim.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: SuperFrog

Is it me or number of people believing in creationist claims on ATS has dropped?!

I have been here almost 9 years and yes there has been a huge drop off, some posters moved on they don't even post on ATS anymore at all, not just on this topic. But the evolutionists have done an excellent job of spreading their message on ATS, they are excellent lawyers in making their case, intelligent and well researched, BUT just because a lawyer is all those things doesn't mean their client is right or innocent.

what happens in a courtroom and what happens in a laboratory are two very different things.

a reply to: Astyanax

Precisely. So, as PhotonEffect intelligently asks, where does that leave us in the debate?

Can you still use science to prove that the proposition that life on Earth was created by a divine entity is wrong?

for the 115th time, that which cannot be proven wrong also cannot be proven right.

if you so desire, devise an experiment by which to test this proposition.

here is an example.



you say the scientific method is not infallible, and perhaps you are correct, but it is the least fallible tool we possess. much less flawed than looking for a black cat in a dark room by touch.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have been here almost 9 years and yes there has been a huge drop off, some posters moved on they don't even post on ATS anymore at all, not just on this topic. But the evolutionists have done an excellent job of spreading their message on ATS, they are excellent lawyers in making their case, intelligent and well researched, BUT just because a lawyer is all those things doesn't mean their client is right or innocent.

Not sure that you can use this comparison, because simple use of (empirical) evidence makes whole difference between scientific and religious entities.

I was wondering if we are first hand experiencing trend in USA, where religion is on loosing trend for quite while now...

www.pewforum.org...

a reply to: TzarChasm

for the 115th time, that which cannot be proven wrong also cannot be proven right.

Quite so. And where does that leave us?

you say the scientific method is not infallible, and perhaps you are correct, but it is the least fallible tool we possess.

Very likely. So does that disprove Creationism?

How?

a reply to: Astyanax

That, I am afraid, is again wrong. The impossibility of verifying these premises is not due to science. They are due to a fundamental uncertainty about our knowledge of reality which science cannot address, and they mean that no scientific process can ever result in certainty about anything.


I think my answer to PhotonEffect covers this:

You are correct about approximations. Newtonian or classical mechanics are highly accurate (or else engineers could never build anything), but the calculations are still approximations. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian mechanics is not useful for our purposes.

We have to accept that in this universe at least, there are no absolutes. That you can't know an absolute "truth" or an absolute certainty. It simply isn't possible. But our calculations are sufficient to build bridges, buildings, fly airplanes - it seems to be enough to manage our world. Right now anyway.

Perceptions are just that - perceptions. That's why we have mathematics to test perceptions in a way that can tell us whether the "perception" has any legs.

At least in this universe, we are gifted with mathematics. No one knows why but without it, we couldn't figure out even the most fundamental things. A camel crossing the Sahara desert moves at the rate of 1 mile per hour. The desert is 2000 miles wide. How long does it take the camel to cross the desert? (of course ruling out all the variables here - just an example). Basic stuff but it applies across the board.

Some of these questions simply don't have an answer. Maybe they will some day. But right now we have observation and analytical methods to at least get us to a workable point

Science does address this problem. But we have to accept that at least in this universe, there are no absolutes (that we know of anyway).

When I say that science is pragmatic I mean that science utilizes logical approaches to the discovery process. And this makes sense because every branch of science necessitates building and designing experiments which fit the problem. Some branches of science lend themselves to easier design. A research project in molecular biology is easier to design and implement than a project in quantum mechanics. And the degree to which uncertainty is relevant to a particular project is part of the decision making process. Non-parametric statistical methods in biology assume that we can't know everything about a system. The "P" value spits out the probability that anomalies will show up more or less than the calculated average. That's why drug discovery has to meet certain criteria before it's released to the public - because we already know that there will be some degree of uncertainty and we want to have a product that "does no harm" to the fewest possible and still have a measure of effectiveness for the general public. So it comes down to risk vs reward.

In QM however, it's a whole other ballgame. Now you're talking probability amplitude, imaginary numbers and probability distributions. If you consider what probability distributions really are saying, it just confirms the indeterminate nature of this universe - i.e. we can't know anything for certain.

I don't disagree with your response. What you said is true. Science isn't responsible for uncertainty. It's our universe that's responsible for uncertainty.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

for the 115th time, that which cannot be proven wrong also cannot be proven right.

Quite so. And where does that leave us?

you say the scientific method is not infallible, and perhaps you are correct, but it is the least fallible tool we possess.

Very likely. So does that disprove Creationism?

How?

its not about proving creationism wrong. thats a trap and we both know it, a trap designed to perpetuate like a track skipping on a cd. creationism is an untested hypothesis, and as far as i have observed, no one is interested in changing that.

the point here, as i understand it, is that creationism has consistently misrepresented and abused science for political gain. allowing the intellectually dishonest to piggyback on the success of the intellectually honest is...ethically questionable, at best. refer again to my second (refined) premise.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Absolutely correct, Barcs. Only one correction: The HE is actually a SHE!

Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry! I know you mentioned this before, and for some reason I thought you were referencing your wife because the person you responded to said something related to husband/wife. Sorry about that!

a reply to: Barcs

Absolutely no problem.

a reply to: Astyanax

Precisely. So, as PhotonEffect intelligently asks, where does that leave us in the debate? Can you still use science to prove that the proposition that life on Earth was created by a divine entity is wrong?

It's really a discussion, not a debate. Everyone is simply presenting their side of the argument and/or questioning others. If people are still interested, they can continue to post. If someone stood up to the plate on the Creationist side and wanted a debate, then as I suggested previously we could organize it on the Debate Forum. So far, no one has signed up. That's probably everything we need to know about the Creationist side of the argument

Scientific investigation is conducted when a question has some evidence one way or another that can be tested and analyzed. A divine entity has no such evidence. Therefore, the question of a divine entity is out of the realm of science.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Is it me or number of people believing in creationist claims on ATS has dropped?!

I remember live discussions here on ATS in regards to creation myth, but now whole forum is kind of dead with overwhelming evidence being found on daily bases that points to evolution.

Interesting time we live in...

It's the disappearing act that always happens when the rational side posts overwhelming evidence that they can't match. The pro science posters continually add to the quality and quantity of evidence. The Creationists may have run their course. In that case, I guess we won

We didn't change any minds. We just pushed them into hiding until such time as they think they can come out and start all over again. By that time, I hope that the library is relatively complete so the pro side can use the links.

In any case, we'll be here when they think the coast is clear and they come out of hiding!