There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey digger whats up.

Both ID and creationism can accommodate evolution, as a mechanism.

Totally agree.

Generally speaking the evidence we would see would be the same.

aka, until we find evidence of ID or Creationism that points towards reality, then what we can see and test with the evidence we can consider it as a Scientific Theory. Set out to explain said natural phenomena.

Is observational evidence alone capable of describing the supernatural?

It seems to me that if the evidence was "natural phenomena", then the most likely explanation must also be purely natural and the supernatural explanation, out of reach.

Gotta admit, to plead to emotions and feelings or a hope is nothing short of buying a lotta ticket, that ends up being a perpetual maybe.

Yes, for some, whose assumptions preclude drawing conclusions similar to ontological arguments and personal or group experiences of spirituality, there can be no resolution.

This is exemplified in the mindset of those who state that ID and creationism are anathema to evolution.

[aka: The End Times is this generation for the past thousand/s of generations.]

Thousands?

"The average age of mothers at birth of their first child was 20 and at the last birth 31, giving a mean of 25.5 years per female generation — considerably above the 20 years often attributed to primitive cultures. Husbands were six to 13 years older, giving a male generational interval of 31 to 38 years." - from professor Google.

So Brother NSW Bloody Aussie!, do you believe in evolution?

Firstly, I have moved around a bit and I don't define myself just as a NSW Aussie anymore (and I was never a particularly Bloody one, as I believe there are far less messy ways).



Unequivocally. Evolution, as codified in the MES, is valuable in describing processes that lead to biodiversity. Those processes provably occur. I "believe" in it, to a certain level of belief but maintain a critical stance on it.

I do not believe that the MES describes the 'one and only' route to biodiversity. Scientifically evidenced things like epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, directed breeding and punctuated equilibrium are not part of the MES. Then there are alternate but less scientifically evidenced explanations leading to biodiversity which cannot be disgarded as possibilities.

Now for my rant as a more complete explanation:

Consider that humans have been modifying the environment, domesticating and selectively breeding organisms going back into prehistory.

In the opening remarks to Science magazine's special issue on Human-Dominated Ecosystems, it said, "Ecologists traditionally have sought to study pristine ecosystems to try to get at the workings of nature without the confounding influences of human activity. But that approach is collapsing in the wake of scientist's realization that there are no places left on Earth that don't fall under humanity's shadow."

'Evolution only' believers are clearly cherry-picking from a dataset that itself is barely existent at this time. They are clearly missing out the majority of reality where the full MES does not apply.

Then there is evidence in specific cases where biodiversification has happened but the full criteria of the MES has not been met, such as evidence showing appearence of a new species (that cannot breed with the purported antecedent species) but the gradualism of accumulated changes and phenotype partitioning described in the MES is absent in the particular case.

Then there is the issue of unsupported assumptions being claimed as being evidenced. Cases where clearly only a single process is actually evidenced (like natural selection alone) and yet it is publicly claimed (even by scientists) that evolution is evidenced.

So, while I 'believe in evolution', I will remain scientifically skeptical.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Mathematical Incompleteness says nature (a formalized, mathematical, axiomatically defined system) can't be totally self defining, that there is always something else.

Nature is NOT "(a formalized, mathematical, axiomatically defined system)". That is absurd.

I know of many things in nature that can be defined axiomatically. What things in nature cannot be defined axiomatically?

I know of many things in nature that can be described mathematically. What things in nature cannot be described mathematically?

I know of many things in nature that are formal, ordered and obey rules. What in nature is not formal, is disordered and obeys no rules?

Could your suggestion of absurdity be based upon un-evidenced speculation?

Superficially, Heisenberg and Godel seem to agree with each other, but their context is miles apart. Godel is about the bounds of formal logic systems, Heisenberg is about the bounds of experimental measurements.

Gregory Chaitin Kurt Gödel Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem +2 Does the Godel incompleteness theorem explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Godel showed that some things are fundamentally unknowable just like in quantum theory some things are fundamentally unmeasurable.

'Logically Unknowable' and 'Experimentally Unmeasurable' are just not the same thing. It is tempting to stretch the simile while under the influence of some aromatic herb, but one has to keep the context in mind at all times or you will run down the rabbit hole and end up in a discussion with Humpty Dumpty again.

I agree that Heisenburg's Uncertainty and Godel's incompleteness are totally unrelated concepts. While Godel's Incompleteness can be applied to the quantum realm where Heisenburg's uncertainty reigns, the reverse is not true. The argument that they are the same, or not, is beside the point of Incompleteness applying, or not, to nature.

'Logically knowable' vs 'experimentally measurable' is, similarly, a red-herring in the argument.

Math is simply an attempt to describe nature.....math is NOT about the numbers it is about the ever repeating patterns nature shows us and replicating them....symbols or number or sounds or colors it matters not the consequence is the same we are copy-catting patterns nature produces for us ….IMHO numbers are the least effective manner of doing this and we have been suppressed by being fed this path of most resistance in schools.

a reply to: chr0naut

Theories about the formation of the solar system have held that it coalesced from nearly static interstellar particulate matter and that its clumping was arranged by resonances and later turbulences.

HYPOTHESES darn it! Why is this so hard for you to understand?

We have observed examples of the gravitational capture of interstellar wanderers and 'sun diver' objects. Current theory holds that the proto-Earth and another object, Thea, collided, creating the Earth and the Moon.

HYPOTHESES darn it! Though the collision is widely accepted, it is NOT TESTABLE (AFAIK) so it cannot be promoted to theory.

So, it is also possible that the Earth is a captured object, just as it is also possible that it was created 'in place' from local Sun orbiting particulates.

Yes it is possible that it is a captured object, though extremely unlikely before the Sun was massive enough to start fusion.

It is not scientifically improbable for a proto-'Earth' to exist prior to stellar ignition,

The phrase "not scientifically improbable" and "not scientifically impossible" do NOT mean the same thing. In fact it is "scientifically unlikely" that the earth formed before stellar fusion.

nor is it improbable for early life to arise on it before there was a mechanism or need for photosynthesis (the 'plant' life that exists around deep sea vents does not photosynthesize).

True, however, the Earth went through a period called the "Late Heavy Bombardment" (evidence of this is still visible) that melted up to 2% of the earths crust at any one time, and of course the collision with the Mars size Theia that resulted in the current Earth-Moon system would have been pretty unfavorable to life establishing itself before those events.

Furthermore, it is all well and good for you to argue that it is scientifically possible for life to form before photosynthesis was available, however your bottom line argument that abiogenesis could not happen because modern cells cannot just 'pop' into existence with all their interdependent parts working is completely negated by that argument. Almost every modern cell (yes expect there are a few exceptions) on the planet is absolutely dependent on photosynthesis directly or indirectly.

Quora: Could the Earth have formed before the Sun?

Wandering Jupiter accounts for our unusual solar system

(Disclaimer: In that last link, the article quotes the authors of the hypothesis using the word theory - without any evidence, I must assume that the reporter changed the authors words. They are clearly describing their work in terms that denotes they understand that it is an hypothesis, albeit an hypothesis with a lot of solid research behind it.)

a reply to: chr0naut

I do not believe that the MES describes the 'one and only' route to biodiversity.

You know what? Neither do scientists! What scientists agree on is that the MES is the BEST EXPLANATION we have for the biodiversity of life on our planet. No one believes it is perfect or complete. Only that it is the best explanation.

No one 'believes' it is the only 'route' possible. But really, the only other 'route' that has been 'seriously' proposed is completely and forever untestable and therefore provides no useful path to understanding the universe around us.

The MES has been validated by more evidence that any other theory in science and has only been improved by every major development in biology, chemistry, and physics ever since it was proposed in the 1920's and 30's.

There is so much evidence for the MES in fact that it is extremely unlikely that something completely novel can come along and replace it root and branch. Sure there may always be new evidence that may require work to reconcile with parts of the MES, but that is not the same thing as demonstrating that MES is wrong, merely that it is incomplete - and always will be.

a reply to: chr0naut

Godel addresses 'formal numerical language systems', and his argument hinges on the problem of whether or not a such a language can completely describe itself.

The key to understanding the limits of Godel's idea is the"First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."" (This is the weaker, but more widely know of Godel's theorems).

See that phrase "a certain amount of elementary arithmetic" - that is a clue: he is talking about mathematical systems, Specifically, "Principia Mathemateca" (Whitehead and Russell).

Nature is not a 'consistent formal system' in which you can do 'a certain amount of elementary arithmetic'. And we are many magnitudes of order away from being near to claim that we have a enough information about it to consider applying the idea of completeness. That is what I find absurd.

That idea that 'Nature' is a formal system within which you can do arithmetic that cannot determinably express all of 'Nature', is the idea that is absurd.

Science is trying to describe and explain nature. Uncertainty doesn't arise because there are true science sentences that cannot be described using science, uncertainty arises because a wavicle cannot have a measurable position and a velocity at the same time.

originally posted by: rnaa
The MES has been validated by more evidence that any other theory in science and has only been improved by every major development in biology, chemistry, and physics ever since it was proposed in the 1920's and 30's.

There is so much evidence for the MES in fact that it is extremely unlikely that something completely novel can come along and replace it root and branch. Sure there may always be new evidence that may require work to reconcile with parts of the MES, but that is not the same thing as demonstrating that MES is wrong, merely that it is incomplete - and always will be.

What version of the MES are you referring to? Serious question here.

Can you quote it as you understand the MES to be formulated, or perhaps provide a link to the version you adhere to?

Quite honestly I have only ever read about the original MES circa 1940s. There's been all this speak in these threads about it being updated as new discoveries have been made, but as far as I can tell those claims are nonsense. I haven't been able to find any evidence that the original formulation of the MES has expanded to include new mechanisms. If that's the case then it is woefully antiquated and in some ways incorrect in its explanation of how evolution works.

Maybe you can help?

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Words have set definitions, that doesn't change because a person "feels" that it should mean something else.

Actually, if you think about that, you will see that it does happen all of the time. We're cool with that right.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Not so much in science as in popular culture.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

What version of the MES are you referring to? Serious question here.

Can you quote it as you understand the MES to be formulated, or perhaps provide a link to the version you adhere to?

Quite honestly I have only ever read about the original MES circa 1940s. There's been all this speak in these threads about it being updated as new discoveries have been made, but as far as I can tell those claims are nonsense. I haven't been able to find any evidence that the original formulation of the MES has expanded to include new mechanisms. If that's the case then it is woefully antiquated and in some ways incorrect in its explanation of how evolution works.

Maybe you can help?

I am really not sure if you are serious or not, even though you claim seriousness. Your question is a lot like asking "What version of a 'car' are you referring too? I have heard about it being invented in the 1890's and updated ever since but as far as I can tell I can tell those claims are nonsense."

The MES is not something that can be described with a few sentences, or a single 'doctrine' that is updated every year at the party annual general meeting. Its got dozens of sub-disciplines - basically all of biology - literally every new thing in biology is a new thing in the MES.

This wiki article is a short list of major events in the development of the MES. It does not address the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of articles that have added to the knowledge embedded in the MES.

source

The modern synthesis[a] was the early 20th-century synthesis reconciling Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity in a joint mathematical framework. Julian Huxley coined the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.

and

In 1942, Julian Huxley's serious but popularising Evolution: The Modern Synthesis introduced a name for the synthesis and intentionally set out to promote a "synthetic point of view" on the evolutionary process. He imagined a wide synthesis of many sciences: genetics, developmental physiology, ecology, systematics, palaeontology, cytology, and mathematical analysis of biology, and assumed that evolution would proceed differently in different groups of organisms according to how their genetic material was organised and their strategies for reproduction, leading to progressive but varying evolutionary trends.

The synthesis is one of disciplines recognized as playing major roles in our knowledge of evolutionary biology. It is not a 'definition' of evolution. Huxley's book, while very influential, was not a research paper nor a manifesto nor an idea complete in and of itself. It was not intended to be 'the final word' on biology, or any of the sub-disciplines. It was a descriptive summary of the state of the art at that time in the multidisciplinary endeavor.

Nothing stands still. Notice the list of sub-disciplines that the quoted article mentions as being included in the synthesis. Knowledge in those disciplines did not stop in time in deference to Huxley's book. They continued to expand and strengthened the synthesis as they did so.

Through the 40's and 50's, Ernst Mayr added systematics to the inter-disciplinary mix, and G.G. Simpson added Paleontology, G. Ledyard Stebbins added botany.

The ideas encompassed in the synthesis have never stood still. Read the linked Wiki article for more detail on major additions right up to today.

As for the situation today...

In 2007, more than half a century after the modern synthesis, Massimo Pigliucci called for an extended evolutionary synthesis to incorporate aspects of biology that had not been included or had not existed in the mid-20th century. It revisits the relative importance of different factors, challenges assumptions made in the modern synthesis, and adds new factors such as multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, and evolvability.

Notice that this 'EES' is does not through out the KNOWLEDGE that is the MES, it is an attempt to revisit Huxley's work, including more scope and perhaps changing emphasis. In that way it is an 'evolution' of the story of evolution, not a revolution.

source

The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942. The extended evolutionary synthesis was called for in the 1950s by C. H. Waddington, argued for on the basis of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1980s, and relaunched in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci.

The extended evolutionary synthesis revisits the relative importance of different factors at play, examining several assumptions of the earlier synthesis, and augmenting it with additional causative factors.[1][2] It includes multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, and evolvability.
...
Other processes such as evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, reticulate evolution, sex evolution and symbiogenesis are said by proponents to have been excluded or missed from the modern synthesis. The goal of Piglucci's extended synthesis is to take evolution beyond the gene-centered approach of population genetics to consider more organism- and ecology-centered approaches. Many of these causes are currently considered secondary in evolutionary causation, and proponents of the extended synthesis want them to be considered first-class evolutionary causes.
...
Biologists disagree on the need for an extended synthesis. Opponents contend that the modern synthesis is able to fully account for the newer observations, while proponents think that the conceptions of evolution at the core of the modern synthesis are too narrow. Proponents argue that even when the modern synthesis allows for the ideas in the extended synthesis, using the modern synthesis affects the way that biologists think about evolution. For example, Denis Noble says that using terms and categories of the modern synthesis distort the picture of biology that modern experimentation has discovered. Proponents therefore claim that the extended synthesis is necessary to help expand the conceptions and framework of how evolution is considered throughout the biological disciplines

The bottom line in all this is that as our knowledge grows, so the Synthesis grows. The discovery of DNA didn't contradict genetics, it confirmed it, provided the mechanism that underlies it, encouraged and enabled hugely rewarding new areas of research.

The biologist Eugene Koonin wrote in 2009 that "the new developments in evolutionary biology by no account should be viewed as refutation of Darwin. On the contrary, they are widening the trails that Darwin blazed 150 years ago and reveal the extraordinary fertility of his thinking."

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

HYPOTHESES darn it! Why is this so hard for you to understand?

By definition, when a hypothesis has been tested experimentally, it becomes a theory.

Computational simulation has allowed us to experiment by feeding in neccesary gravitational and other force parameters into very rich virtual scenarios.

The validity of the data upon which these simulatens are based is verified by probes which have allowed us to collect direct data and samples. We have made observations at all spectral wavelengths, and with radiometric, gravitational and magnetometric sensors.

I would suggest that what was once called the Nebular hypothesis is now theory as the neccesary testing of all its conjectures has been performed experimentally and repeatedly.

We have observed examples of the gravitational capture of interstellar wanderers and 'sun diver' objects. Current theory holds that the proto-Earth and another object, Thea, collided, creating the Earth and the Moon.

HYPOTHESES darn it! Though the collision is widely accepted, it is NOT TESTABLE (AFAIK) so it cannot be promoted to theory.

Hypotheses are testable, scientific theories are both testable and have been tested experimentally.

How the Moon Formed: Lunar Rocks Support Giant Impact Theory - Space.com

Yes it is possible that it is a captured object, though extremely unlikely before the Sun was massive enough to start fusion.

It isn't mass that causes fusion, it is the temperature due to compression.

The phrase "not scientifically improbable" and "not scientifically impossible" do NOT mean the same thing. In fact it is "scientifically unlikely" that the earth formed before stellar fusion.

The models show planets forming quite rapidly and the calculations are that Sun took about 50 million years to 'ignite' after the first solid matter accrued in the solar system (also verified by time frames for stellar development observed within the Orion Nebula's star forming clouds).

nor is it improbable for early life to arise on it before there was a mechanism or need for photosynthesis (the 'plant' life that exists around deep sea vents does not photosynthesize).

True, however, the Earth went through a period called the "Late Heavy Bombardment" (evidence of this is still visible) that melted up to 2% of the earths crust at any one time, and of course the collision with the Mars size Theia that resulted in the current Earth-Moon system would have been pretty unfavorable to life establishing itself before those events.

The collision with Theia is around the same time as the Sun would have 'ignited' (give or take a fair margin of error).

As for the late heavy bombardment, it wasn't a one hit death-shot but occurred over tens of millions of years. We have no reason to believe that it would have sterilized the planet.

Furthermore, it is all well and good for you to argue that it is scientifically possible for life to form before photosynthesis was available, however your bottom line argument that abiogenesis could not happen because modern cells cannot just 'pop' into existence with all their interdependent parts working is completely negated by that argument.

You seem to have forgotten that that is precisely what special creation says.

You are assuming that chemical abiogenesis is the only way for life to come into existence.

I also did not suggest that chemical abiogenesis could not happen. I suggested it was unlikely, as far as we now know.

Unlikely or not, I actually think it is a very valid scientific paradigm.

Almost every modern cell (yes expect there are a few exceptions) on the planet is absolutely dependent on photosynthesis directly or indirectly.

But as you pointed out before, we are talking about extreme archaia.

Quora: Could the Earth have formed before the Sun?

Wandering Jupiter accounts for our unusual solar system

(Disclaimer: In that last link, the article quotes the authors of the hypothesis using the word theory - without any evidence, I must assume that the reporter changed the authors words. They are clearly describing their work in terms that denotes they understand that it is an hypothesis, albeit an hypothesis with a lot of solid research behind it.)

Neither of these links really eliminates the possibility of the Earth existing as a solid world before the Sun ignited.

...and the whole 'hypothesis/theory' definition thing, a red herring deflection from the actual argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

You seem to have forgotten that that is precisely what special creation says.

You are assuming that chemical abiogenesis is the only way for life to come into existence.

I also did not suggest that chemical abiogenesis could not happen. I suggested it was unlikely, as far as we now know.

Unlikely or not, I actually think it is a very valid scientific paradigm.

are you aware of any tests that have been done to confirm the probability of 'divine edict" as per your special creation hypothesis? is there a god force that can be detected and measured? like red shift being traced to draw a map of the universe?

a reply to: chr0naut

Ahh so those two pseudosciences/belief systems will be opening themselves up to scientific methodology? Cool. Though I believe it when it happens

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

You know what? Neither do scientists!

I'm fairly sure that Richard Dawkins believes that the MES describes the 'one and only' route to biodiversity (but there has been public disagreement over his credentials as a scientist).

What scientists agree on is that the MES is the BEST EXPLANATION we have for the biodiversity of life on our planet. No one believes it is perfect or complete. Only that it is the best explanation.

Implicit in the subjective value judgement of MES being "the best explanation" is the idea that the MES somehow excludes other theories.

The MES, Punctuated Equilibrium, HGT and epigenetics can all operate in the same thought space and the proposed outcomes of those relative theories/hypotheses is identical in most cases.

Definitely, I'm sure that at some stage you will suggest that these alternate hypotheses/theories are just part of evolutionary development (of which the MES is the best explanation).

The MES is a predominantly workable explanation for biodiversity, but not the only one, nor does it exclude other ideas.

No one 'believes' it is the only 'route' possible. But really, the only other 'route' that has been 'seriously' proposed is completely and forever untestable and therefore provides no useful path to understanding the universe around us.

You are suggesting a false dichotomy.

The MES has been validated by more evidence that any other theory in science and has only been improved by every major development in biology, chemistry, and physics ever since it was proposed in the 1920's and 30's.

There is so much evidence for the MES in fact that it is extremely unlikely that something completely novel can come along and replace it root and branch. Sure there may always be new evidence that may require work to reconcile with parts of the MES, but that is not the same thing as demonstrating that MES is wrong, merely that it is incomplete - and always will be.

Since you love tight definitions, wouldn't the MES be a hypothesis? I mean parts of it have been experimentally verified but the whole of it in every situation hasn't.

Some might even go as far as posit that there are parts of the MES that are not testable (especially around speciation leading to the phylogenetic tree structure and the 'vast swathes of time' gradualism) making it less than a hypothesis?

If the MES is an "incomplete" idea (which it isn't), how could it even be a valid hypothesis?

Getting back to the topic, there's the 'theory' (codified as the MES) and the much more broad and generalized interpretation. Just because you don't make the distiction, doesn't mean it isn't there.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are confusing Richard Dawkins the individual with Scientists the group. Any single individual is able to believe what they like. So for example I'm a hard polytheist as well as a scientist, yet are all Sceintists hard polytheists ? No. Science is no single person, it is a consensus of thought based on the evidence. You thus do not have "the only path" with complex biological processes. Why? They are complex. Your statistical measures are in the 60% to 80% likelyhoods not the 90s.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Godel addresses 'formal numerical language systems', and his argument hinges on the problem of whether or not a such a language can completely describe itself.

The key to understanding the limits of Godel's idea is the"First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."" (This is the weaker, but more widely know of Godel's theorems).

I think my argument relates more closely to the second Incompleteness theorem, which increases the scope of the first Incompleteness theorem by application to the theorem itself as below:

"Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then F ⊬ Cons ( F )"

Consider that;

- We have no reason to believe that nature is inconsistent (even quantum indeterminancy is covered by the Hamilton-Jacobi equation's derivation in the Schrödinger equation).

- Nature is definitely described as a formalized system and we have no evidence that it does not operate outside of formal concepts.

- Nature also contains elementary arithmetic. Elementary arithmetic specifically excludes non-standard models (i.e:they are isomorphic to the standard model) and the best definition of the standard model being the Principa Mathematica.

The usual excuse that 'we don't actually know if nature is inconsistent' and that therefore Incompleteness doesn't apply to nature is actually an expected outcome of Incompleteness. Therefore, to use 'lack of knowledge' as a basis of denying the applicability of Incompleteness to nature, is absurdly inconsistent.

See that phrase "a certain amount of elementary arithmetic" - that is a clue: he is talking about mathematical systems, Specifically, "Principia Mathemateca" (Whitehead and Russell).

Nature is not a 'consistent formal system' in which you can do 'a certain amount of elementary arithmetic'. And we are many magnitudes of order away from being near to claim that we have a enough information about it to consider applying the idea of completeness. That is what I find absurd.

So are you proposing that nature does not conform to description by elementary mathematical rules as defined in the Principa Mathematica? That there is no consistency to natural processes? That the rules governing nature are not formal?

That idea that 'Nature' is a formal system within which you can do arithmetic that cannot determinably express all of 'Nature', is the idea that is absurd.

Why is it absurd?

We have evidence that mathematics itself has just that issue. If mathematics describes nature, then nature inherits the problem.

Science is trying to describe and explain nature. Uncertainty doesn't arise because there are true science sentences that cannot be described using science, uncertainty arises because a wavicle cannot have a measurable position and a velocity at the same time.

Our inability to measure both at the same time, does not mean that those properties of velocity and position don't exist at the same time.

It indicates a problem in measurement.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

are you aware of any tests that have been done to confirm the probability of 'divine edict" as per your special creation hypothesis? is there a god force that can be detected and measured? like red shift being traced to draw a map of the universe?

Many people have recorded "testing their faith", via various methods, some in fairly scientific double blind tests.

Although the results have not always been unquestionable, and there is always room for interpretation, there has been enough affirmative evidence for most people.

As for a specific 'god force', I'm not even vaguely sure what that might be. Surely every force would be a god force?

... and apparent red-shift may not be as we think.

Definitely there are massive objects at the very edges of the observable universe which are significantly blue-shifted, the so called "Blue Outliers" (a recent study found that 21 of the quasars in its list of 52 targets were actually blue outliers. 40% is a significant number).

In an exapnding universe the outer fringes are supposed to be travelling away from us at greater and greater velocities defined by the Hubble constant and dependent upon the distance from us.

To have massive objects observably moving counter to that, by vast deltas in velocity, actually disproves universal expansion and/or that red-shift represents an optical doppler effect and that the Hubble constant applies consistently.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Ahh so those two pseudosciences/belief systems will be opening themselves up to scientific methodology? Cool. Though I believe it when it happens

Were they ever closed off to scientific methodology? I personally welcome scientific methodology to try and make a determination.

If scientific methodology has, to date, proven damn near useless in making determinations in their regard, and they existed well prior to scientific methodology, the fault doesn't lie with them, does it?



... and really, what has a failure of science got to do with the fact that evolutionary processes don't exclude the possibility that other processes could occur as well?

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes they are closed off. Because they rely on "god" or "god like aliens" did it as the only explanation. That is not testable. You need to quantify the supernatural, which would make it then natural. SO when faith can quantify their deities, Science is free to come in and test it. Speaking as a spiritual person, I don't try to force my faith on my science, or my science on my faith. Others should try that some time.

a reply to: chr0naut

By definition, when a hypothesis has been tested experimentally, it becomes a theory.

NO. Not 'by definition'. Testability is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

If it fails the test, it does not become a theory, or part of a theory (duh!).

If it passes the test, but is more complicated than some competing hypothesis that also passes, it does not become a theory or part of a theory (Occum's Razor: simpler is better).

If it passes the test, but does not explain the particular phenomenon as well, or as fully, or is applicable to fewer use cases as some competing hypothesis, it does not become a theory or part of a theory. (General completeness: General applicability is better that special cases).