Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[Polymath257]

Well, at least I don't claim absolute physical proof exists for my conclusions like you do. If you really think that you have been sadly misled and deceived.

Who said anything about 'absolute'? Any measurement has a margin of error. That means that ore refined measurements can require changes in our viewpoints.

But, in spite of that, the idea that the earth is flat will no longer be resurrected. And the idea that it is less than 10,000 years old won't either.

 

[DavidFirth]

Who said anything about 'absolute'? Any measurement has a margin of error. That means that ore refined measurements can require changes in our viewpoints.

But, in spite of that, the idea that the earth is flat will no longer be resurrected. And the idea that it is less than 10,000 years old won't either.

Changing the subject? Hmm.

Well, do you have proof or don't you? You have evidence interpreted according to scientific assumptions and presupposition. That's all you've got. You do not have proof.

 

[Polymath257]

Changing the subject? Hmm.

Well, do you have proof or don't you? You have evidence interpreted according to scientific assumptions and presupposition. That's all you've got. You do not have proof.

Proof of what? That the Bible is only reliable during a very specific historical period and completely unreliable aside from that? That the story of Exodus was not based on historical facts, but was a legend formulated much later than the claimed events? That the stories in Genesis and Exodus were creation legends for a particular society with no basis in fact?

Look at any modern archeology book concerned with the appropriate time period and location.

How about Archaeology of the Land of the Bible by Amihai Mazar or The Archaeology of Ancient Israel by Amnon Ben-Tor. Both give extensive notes pointing to modern research.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lynch is saying that many of the genes in modern life such as vertebrate were present in basal linages so they were around very early in time. Life was complex very early in time and has even more simple rather than progressing towards more complexity in some cases. So the genetic info was there to build future features that came later.

Many developmental genes previously thought to have originated in the vertebrate lineage, owing to their absence in arthropods and nematodes, are now known to be present in basal lineages of animals lacking mesoderm (the cnidarians), and by inference must have simply been lost from various invertebrate phyla (51). Numerous examples of morphological simplification exist in animals (e.g., limb loss in lizards and salamanders, coelom loss in nematodes, and mouth and anal loss in hydrothermal-vent worms), and a plausible, albeit controversial, case has even been made that ). Numerous examples of morphological simplification exist in animals (e.g., limb loss in lizards and salamanders, coelom loss in nematodes, and mouth and anal loss in hydrothermal-vent worms), and a plausible, albeit controversial, case has even been made that 52).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

This is also supported by other papers.

This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs
Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

I still don't see anything in any of those about "pre-determined processes". Lynch is simply saying that the genetic sequences for basic developmental genes arose earlier in basal organisms and were later lost in some lineages.

Yes but it is not becuase of natural selection which is often attributed as being the cause for all evolution through adaptations. The point of the paper is that there are myths about natural selection being an all powerful force that is responsible for all of evolution when there is no evidence for this. Natural selection is given a creative power of being able to morph all sorts of features and creatures into existence which forms the basis for the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Right......and he specified the other mechanisms behind evolution: mutation, recombination, and genetic drift.

This is not the case especially for the emergence of complex organisms which are the result of non adaptive processes and other mechanisms mentioned in the nature paper I posted earlier such as HGT, developmental bias, plasticity, niche construction and extra-genetic inheritance.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

You're repeating yourself.

I'm getting the impression that you're trying to impose something on Lynch's papers that just isn't there. Specifically, you're taking where he advocates for additional evolutionary mechanisms....mutation, recombination, and drift.....and trying to turn that into him advocating for "pre-determined processes", something he never even mentions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Though I am not a creationistsI agree that no direct scientific evidence will ever prove that life and existence is created by some sort of agent such as God. But when you consider the difficulty of how life and existence began we can find some indirect support such as this response from another poster in another thread which makes a good argument for God and the creation of the universe and life.
sadi_sm, Jun 4, 2017

That's nothing more than classic "God of the gaps" and appeals to incredulity.

even some scientists want to make arguments that life on earth may have been seeded by some other alien life or that there are other dimensions such as multiverses to help explain our finely tuned universe and how life began which shows that they are willing to consider intelligent agents or realms beyond our reality that may help explain how our existence came to be. This shows that science has difficulty in explaining these things and that they need to appeal to ideas and explanations that defy normal scientific verification which makes the God hypothesis a reasonable consideration.

There is no "God hypothesis". It's merely a religious belief that attempts to answer one mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery.

 

[stevevw]

That's nothing more than classic "God of the gaps" and appeals to incredulity.


There is no "God hypothesis". It's merely a religious belief that attempts to answer one mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery.

What is the difference between that and considering other mysteries or far fetched ideas that even science and mainstream society uses. I wouldn't say it was using a God of the gaps argument when there is logic and good reasoning used to support the possibility of an intelligent agent being involved. The arguments posted in the previous post use the same sort of reasonoing and logic as many other ideas that have been accepted by most people when trying to support their case for how life and the universe may have began. IE because our universe is finely tuned for life there must be many other universes which makes our universe one of many and not so special. There is bound to be one universe like ours in amoung a multitude of universes that has our exact phycial conditions. Or becuase we cannot come up with an explanation for how life began on our planet it may have come from another planet that has life or has been purposely planted here by an alien race which takes away the difficulty of explaining how life could begin from non-life.

These arguments and ideas are well accepted and used in science and by many mainstream people to explain the difficult questions of how life and existence came to be. Yet they do not have any direct evidence and are at best based on indirect support IE becuase there are many earth like planets there is a possibility of other life being out there so it makes sense that life on earth could have come from somewhere where it has already been created and made it to earth. Or becuase there are many other universes for which some would have been around before ours this takes away the problem of explaining how our universe came to be from nothing. So in that sense if an intelligent agent such as a God is classed as a God of the gaps argument then these other ideas used by science are also arguments of gaps. A case can be made with indirect evidence for all these ideas so they should all be considered.

 

[stevevw]

I still don't see anything in any of those about "pre-determined processes". Lynch is simply saying that the genetic sequences for basic developmental genes arose earlier in basal organisms and were later lost in some lineages.


Right......and he specified the other mechanisms behind evolution: mutation, recombination, and genetic drift.

You're repeating yourself.

I'm getting the impression that you're trying to impose something on Lynch's papers that just isn't there. Specifically, you're taking where he advocates for additional evolutionary mechanisms....mutation, recombination, and drift.....and trying to turn that into him advocating for "pre-determined processes", something he never even mentions.

Lynches paper is just one of many and each paper talks about different aspects for why Dawins theory of natural selection for evolution is over stated and not the main reason for how life began and changed. When all the ideas of non-adaptive processes as well as the other processes from the other papers given are taken into consideration a good case can be made for a high level of complexity for life from a very early point in time and for life gaining further complexity for which natural selection and random mutations cannot account for or explain and support with any direct evidence. The evidence actually support these other processes which do not rely on adaptations of fitness which subjects things to a hit and miss process of external conditions rather than perhaps preexisting inbuilt internal mechanisms that determine certain developmental pathways that are more suited to the changes needed for life to live on earth.

Genetic drift, mutations and recombination make more sense in how variation and traits can be fixed in populations but there are also other mechanisms mentioned earlier such as HGT or the other processes for how life grows and develops also mentioned from other fields such as developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science that make more sense for how life can change. The main point is I am not saying that evolution by nautural selection does not happen but that is is over stated and there are other processes that actually do the job of what natural selection has been credited with and selection may be a refiner of life rather than something that can create greater complexity and fundelmental changes in life.

 

[Jose Fly]

What is the difference between that and considering other mysteries or far fetched ideas that even science and mainstream society uses.

You'll have to be more specific.

I wouldn't say it was using a God of the gaps argument when there is logic and good reasoning used to support the possibility of an intelligent agent being involved.

No, it's a pretty basic "science has no explanation, therefore God" argument.

The arguments posted in the previous post use the same sort of reasonoing and logic as many other ideas that have been accepted by most people when trying to support their case for how life and the universe may have began. IE because our universe is finely tuned for life there must be many other universes which makes our universe one of many and not so special.

I've never seen the multiverse hypothesis justified that way. Do you have a citation?

Or becuase we cannot come up with an explanation for how life began on our planet it may have come from another planet that has life or has been purposely planted here by an alien race which takes away the difficulty of explaining how life could begin from non-life.

I don't think actual panspermia hypotheses are that simplistic. Again, if you have a citation to where it's justified that way, please post it.

These arguments and ideas are well accepted and used in science and by many mainstream people to explain the difficult questions of how life and existence came to be. Yet they do not have any direct evidence and are at best based on indirect support IE becuase there are many earth like planets there is a possibility of other life being out there so it makes sense that life on earth could have come from somewhere where it has already been created and made it to earth. Or becuase there are many other universes for which some would have been around before ours this takes away the problem of explaining how our universe came to be from nothing. So in that sense if an intelligent agent such as a God is classed as a God of the gaps argument then these other ideas used by science are also arguments of gaps. A case can be made with indirect evidence for all these ideas so they should all be considered.

I think you're greatly over-simplifying these ideas, assuming that's all there is to them, and then figuring that since the God of the gaps is about as simplistic it must be just as good.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Always before

 

[Jose Fly]

When all the ideas of non-adaptive processes as well as the other processes from the other papers given are taken into consideration a good case can be made for a high level of complexity for life from a very early point in time and for life gaining further complexity for which natural selection and random mutations cannot account for or explain and support with any direct evidence. The evidence actually support these other processes which do not rely on adaptations of fitness which subjects things to a hit and miss process of external conditions rather than perhaps preexisting inbuilt internal mechanisms that determine certain developmental pathways that are more suited to the changes needed for life to live on earth.

Again, you've imposed this notion of "preexisting inbuilt internal mechanisms" onto scientific work, even though it's just not there.

Genetic drift, mutations and recombination make more sense in how variation and traits can be fixed in populations but there are also other mechanisms mentioned earlier such as HGT or the other processes for how life grows and develops also mentioned from other fields such as developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science that make more sense for how life can change.

Yes, I'm quite aware of those things.

The main point is I am not saying that evolution by nautural selection does not happen but that is is over stated and there are other processes that actually do the job of what natural selection has been credited with and selection may be a refiner of life rather than something that can create greater complexity and fundelmental changes in life.

Ok. But you're aware that mechanisms other than selection have been known for quite some time now, right?

 

[stevevw]

Again, you've imposed this notion of "preexisting inbuilt internal mechanisms" onto scientific work, even though it's just not there.

How else can these mechanisms be understood. The new genetic info that organisms gain from other organisms they cohabitate with from processes such as HGT stem from preexisting genetic info and not something that has been mutated and selected for. The epigenetic changes in the way genes are expressed becuase of the way a previous generation acted or lived is based on preexisting genetic material that is expressed differently. Recombination is based on changing preexisting genetic material as with genetic drift and flow which are using prexisting genetic material to make changes in living things.

As the Nature paper mentions " Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’), organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes". It states that variation is not random because "developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others" (Laland, Uller, Feldman, Sterelny, Muller, Moczek, Jablonka, Odling-Smee, Wray, Hoekstra, Futuyma, Lenksi, Mackay, Schluter & Strassmann, 2014). This for me seems to be indicating that inbuilt developmental processes are at work rather than external adaptive mechanisms. The paper gives the example where one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development.

Developmental bias — helps to explain how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species. For example cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi are more closely related to other cichlids in Lake Malawi than to those in Lake Tanganyika, but species in both lakes have strikingly similar body shapes4. In each case, some fish have large fleshy lips, others protruding foreheads, and still others short, robust lower jaws. The standard evolutionary theory would explain this as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results which requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6, (Laland, et al, 2014).

Another non-adaptive mechanism is plastisidy and an example is given how a leaf shape changes with soil water and chemistry. As the Nature paper states "the key finding here is that plasticity not only allows organisms to cope in new environmental conditions but to generate traits that are well-suited to them". Another non-adaptive process is Niche construction where creatures change their enviroment to suit them rather than through adaptations changing creatures to suit enviroments. As the paper suggests this makes living things active directors in their own evolution thereby biasing evolution rather than always being subject to the forces of natural selection through adaptations (Laland, et al, 2014). There are other mechanisms such as from ecology and social science which affect especially more complex life such as humans which can also have an effect on changing life in different ways.

So all these mechanisms use pre-existing genetic info and are pre-determined in the sense that they are biased toward certain developmental pathways and outcomes rather than subjeect to adaptive forces which are based on adaptations and survival of the fittest. Life is subject to a range of influences which can alter their developmental trajectories or the expression of their genes without the need of natural selection. The point is Natural selection has been attributed with every change that happens and all change has been seen in adaptive terms which is not the case.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Ok. But you're aware that mechanisms other than selection have been known for quite some time now, right?

Yes but for many people they are not acknowledged and instead natural selection has been given the credit either through ignorance or purposely elevating natural selection becuase it is a simple way of making a case for Darwins theory of evolution. One particular famous promotor is Richard Dawkins who has given natural selection an all powerful creative ability to help promote his beliefs aboiut evolution for which Lynch states has come at the expense of these other non-adaptive mechanisms.

Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation. It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[stevevw]

You'll have to be more specific.

Scientists use all sorts of non verified ideas to help explain what they see such as mentioned earlier, the multiverse idea but also other ideas such as hologram worlds, worm holes, black holes, theory of cosmic inflation, cosmic strings, nothing is really something, dark energy, dark matter, the big bang, the big crunch, the big freeze, we live in a computer simulation, theory of abiogenesis,

When you consider that most scientific theories and ideas are proven wrong and some of the crazy scientific ideas that were regarded as being true in the past such as the flat earth, geocentric, phlogiston, the static universe the God hypothesis seems reasonable as an alternative in amoung these ideas.

No, it's a pretty basic "science has no explanation, therefore God" argument.

That is what some say who dont bother to look at an intelligent agent as being a possibility especially for questions such as how life and the universe came to be. Becuase the evidence points to explanations that are outside the parameters of scientific verification and analysis it demands ideas that defy scientific verifiaction and current methods of measuring. That is why science has come up with some pretty far fetched ideas themselves so the God hypotheses is not so unreasonable considering the evidence points to something being capable of creating something from nothing.

I though the explanation I linked from another poster made good sense and good logic for an argument forr an intelligent agent for the universe and life and was not based on an empty assertion. It may be that science cannot and should not consider supernatural ideas but If science ends up never finding an answer or that the evidence points to explanations that support ideas that are outside scientific parameters then maybe science has to acknowledge that it cannot answer this question and that there may be something that defies scientific explanations going on.

I've never seen the multiverse hypothesis justified that way. Do you have a citation?

A multiverse has been used to counter the fine tuning argument for some time now.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life

I don't think actual panspermia hypotheses are that simplistic. Again, if you have a citation to where it's justified that way, please post it.

Are we all ALIENS? Support grows for the panspermia theory that claims life on Earth may have arrived here from outer space
Panspermia theory claims life on Earth may have arrived here from outer space | Daily Mail Online

What if … We came from space?
What if … We came from space?

The Only Sci-Fi Explanation of Hominid Aliens that Makes Scientific Sense
The Only Sci-Fi Explanation of Hominid Aliens that Makes Scientific Sense - Science Not Fiction

I think you're greatly over-simplifying these ideas, assuming that's all there is to them, and then figuring that since the God of the gaps is about as simplistic it must be just as good.

Maybe I am but I understand that these ideas have more to them than what I have proposed. The point is it is becoming more common for scientific ideas that cannot be verified and which incorporate aspects that step outside the normal scientific measurmentents of cause and effect becuase what they have to explain defy scientific explanations. Maybe the intelligent agent or God hypothesis is being simplified as well.

 

[Jose Fly]

How else can these mechanisms be understood. The new genetic info that organisms gain from other organisms they cohabitate with from processes such as HGT stem from preexisting genetic info and not something that has been mutated and selected for. The epigenetic changes in the way genes are expressed becuase of the way a previous generation acted or lived is based on preexisting genetic material that is expressed differently. Recombination is based on changing preexisting genetic material as with genetic drift and flow which are using prexisting genetic material to make changes in living things.

You seem to be conflating pre-existing genetic material with pre-existing processes. But you've not shown how that extrapolation is warranted, other than your appeal to incredulity.

The rest of your post is what we've already covered....that there are more evolutionary mechanisms than natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientists use all sorts of non verified ideas to help explain what they see such as mentioned earlier, the multiverse idea but also other ideas such as hologram worlds, worm holes, black holes, theory of cosmic inflation, cosmic strings, nothing is really something, dark energy, dark matter, the big bang, the big crunch, the big freeze, we live in a computer simulation, theory of abiogenesis,

And those hypotheses that are not testable are not scientific.

When you consider that most scientific theories and ideas are proven wrong and some of the crazy scientific ideas that were regarded as being true in the past such as the flat earth, geocentric, phlogiston, the static universe the God hypothesis seems reasonable as an alternative in amoung these ideas.

What exactly is the "God hypothesis" and how would we test it?

That is what some say who dont bother to look at an intelligent agent as being a possibility especially for questions such as how life and the universe came to be. Becuase the evidence points to explanations that are outside the parameters of scientific verification and analysis it demands ideas that defy scientific verifiaction and current methods of measuring.

Who says it lies outside of scientific verification? If you're saying that it's merely because they are currently unanswered mysteries, then that is textbook "God of the gaps".

I though the explanation I linked from another poster made good sense and good logic for an argument forr an intelligent agent for the universe and life and was not based on an empty assertion.

It's not based on assertion as much as it's based on "Science can't figure this out, therefore God". And beyond the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, it assumes "science has not figured this out" means "science will never figure this out". But as history shows, that's a foolish assumption.

You should watch this Neil DeGrasse Tyson lecture on this way of thinking and how the history of science shows it to be a mistake....

A multiverse has been used to counter the fine tuning argument for some time now.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life

Thanks for posting that. It looks like in philosophical circles you're correct. I guess the fact that I'm not that interested in philosophy was the source of my error.

Are we all ALIENS? Support grows for the panspermia theory that claims life on Earth may have arrived here from outer space

Panspermia theory claims life on Earth may have arrived here from outer space | Daily Mail Online

What if … We came from space?
What if … We came from space?

The Only Sci-Fi Explanation of Hominid Aliens that Makes Scientific Sense
The Only Sci-Fi Explanation of Hominid Aliens that Makes Scientific Sense - Science Not Fiction

Those all cite specific positive evidence to justify the panspermia idea (organic material in space and on comets, signs that Mars may have had life). None of them present the idea in the simplistic manner you described.

Maybe I am but I understand that these ideas have more to them than what I have proposed. The point is it is becoming more common for scientific ideas that cannot be verified and which incorporate aspects that step outside the normal scientific measurmentents of cause and effect becuase what they have to explain defy scientific explanations. Maybe the intelligent agent or God hypothesis is being simplified as well.

I suppose it's possible, but I tend to doubt it.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientists use all sorts of non verified ideas to help explain what they see such as mentioned earlier, the multiverse idea but also other ideas such as hologram worlds, worm holes, black holes, theory of cosmic inflation, cosmic strings, nothing is really something, dark energy, dark matter, the big bang, the big crunch, the big freeze, we live in a computer simulation, theory of abiogenesis,

Yes, scientists don't do a good job of clearly explaining what is speculative and what is not. Part of that is due to how journalists want to publish the extreme speculation instead of the (relatively) boring facts.

So, in your list, multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes, computer simulation, cosmic strings, and a big crunch (before the Big Bang) are pure speculation at this point. Black holes, dark matter, and the Big Bang are NOT speculation at this point. They are solidly proven. Cosmic inflation, dark energy, and abiogenesis are very likely but not proven conclusively.

When you consider that most scientific theories and ideas are proven wrong and some of the crazy scientific ideas that were regarded as being true in the past such as the flat earth, geocentric, phlogiston, the static universe the God hypothesis seems reasonable as an alternative in amoung these ideas.

First of all, a flat earth was *never* a scientific theoryIt was a popular belief that conflicted with even very early scientific opinion (say, that of Aristotle).

Second, the geocentric viewpoint was based on observation, was testable, and was discarded when new evidence came about showing it to be wrong (telescopes helped here). Phlogiston was based on observation, was testable, and was discarded when new evidence came about showing it to be wrong (heat produced by drilling didn't follow the theory). The static universe ideas were pure bias without any real observational basis and were discarded when evidence came about showing them wrong (Hubble did this).

So, now, what observational evidence do you have to support the 'God hypothesis'? What tests do you propose to determine if that hypothesis is correct or not? In particular, what observation would show the hypothesis to be *wrong*? If you cannot provide one, then it simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

That is what some say who dont bother to look at an intelligent agent as being a possibility especially for questions such as how life and the universe came to be. Becuase the evidence points to explanations that are outside the parameters of scientific verification and analysis it demands ideas that defy scientific verifiaction and current methods of measuring. That is why science has come up with some pretty far fetched ideas themselves so the God hypotheses is not so unreasonable considering the evidence points to something being capable of creating something from nothing.

On the contrary, the God hypothesis is rejected because it doesn't actually explain anything. What are the *details* of how an intelligence designed and put things into practice? What predictions can be made from the assumption of an intelligent designer that distinguishes that hypothesis from the opposite? What tests will distinguish the two? Why is DNA used as the genetic material rather than some other polymer? Why is there both DNA and RNA in the process to transcribe DNA to proteins? Why are only the 20 or so amino acids used in life given the number that are *possible* to use?

And, how does assuming an intelligent designer help in answering any of those questions? What actual results does it suggest? What actual insights does it give? Details, please.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

And those hypotheses that are not testable are not scientific.

It’s not as simple as that. The problem is when it comes to some things such as astrophysics and quantum physics no matter what the answer is going to be it is going to fall outside the normal parameters of measurements and beyond testable limits. That is why scientists are coming up with these unreal ideas because they have to so they can fit it to the observations.

This is explained well in the following article on this subject which explains how science has reached a dead end in trying to explain certain things like our universe. Because of the difficultly of uniting the quantum theories with Einstein’s theory of relativity scientists have been forced to come up with elaborate ideas such as string theory and multiverses which fit the observations. The problem is they cannot be verified.

A Crisis at the Edge of Physics
Opinion | A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

This is the problem as stated in the above article that the ideas that scientists are coming up with fit the observations and therefore are regarded as being well supported and then many begin to believe that they have found the answer. But how do we know that scientists are not just creating ideas to suit what they see. The problem is because there is nothing better that fits and cannot be verified it ends up becoming believed by many.

What exactly is the "God hypothesis" and how would we test it?

It could be understood in many ways. One way is through consciousness such consciousness may be something that exists beyond our reality. Similar reasoning is used for this as with things like multiverses and other ideas from mainstream science when it comes to quantum physics ie Schrodinger’s cat etc. Because consciousness may exist beyond our reality then this is indirect support for an intelligence behind our reality. There are other good reasoned arguments for using an intelligent agent as an explanation for explaining what we are seeing such as the fine-tuning argument, the observer effect in quantum mechanics and the ones I posted from another poster which make a logical argument for an intelligent agent behind what we see.

Even science can make an argument for an intelligent agent behind the creation of our universe and life. I mean even multiverses claim that there is another version of you or me or other entities that exists is claiming that there are other realities with conscious beings in them, so what is the difference. Now I know some say that this is all psudo-science but mainstream science is using the same sort of thinking with other world and dimension ideas and things like the observer effect and consciousness has some pretty strong support. The fine tuning arguement has been a difficult one for science to address and makes a good case for an intelligent agent behind our existence.

Here is a famous physicist (Michio Kaku) who was involved in creating the string theory who also has created a theory that there is an intelligent agent behind the universe and has scientific evidence for it
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory.
Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. - PubMed - NCBI

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness

Who says it lies outside of scientific verification? If you're saying that it's merely because they are currently unanswered mysteries, then that is textbook "God of the gaps".

The scientists say it, the observational evidence points to it and demands that the answers cannot be within the standard measurements no matter what ideas they come up with. That is why all the ideas posited so far are beyond the possibility of being verified directly.

It's not based on assertion as much as it's based on "Science can't figure this out, therefore God". And beyond the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, it assumes "science has not figured this out" means "science will never figure this out". But as history shows, that's a foolish assumption.

I am not saying science will never figure it out but that the answer is going to be beyond the parameters of standard measuring and testing.

You should watch this Neil DeGrasse Tyson lecture on this way of thinking and how the history of science shows it to be a mistake....

Thanks, I enjoyed the video and like Neil DeGrasse Tyson as he explains things well. It makes me realize that in some ways I shouldn’t engage in these types of debates as at the end of the day God, belief and religion are not science as DeGrasse Tyson says. I agree that religion can slow the progress of scientific inquiry but you also must remember that some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by people who had faith. DeGrasse Tyson is not saying we should disregard belief as he mentions that intelligent people also believe and it is a real part of being human and needs to be understood as well. I think he is simplifying a part of human nature that adds to the dimension of being human. It is not all about progress and achievements.

My point is I am not advocating to slow science down and in fact it can reveal a deeper understanding of God’s creation. But even allowing science to have an unrestricted approach it is reaching a point in some ways such as quantum mechanics mentioned above where the answers are outside the way we have measured things for a very long time and cannot be tested.

Those all cite specific positive evidence to justify the panspermia idea (organic material in space and on comets, signs that Mars may have had life). None of them present the idea in the simplistic manner you described.

The point is it is speculated from some indirect evidence that does not lead to their conclusions. Those conclusions may be more about addressing the difficulty of how life started on earth from non-life then actually being verifiable evidence for life in other parts of the universe. This may be a form of addressing an unanswered problem with an explanation to fill the gap just as God is claimed to be used for. This is what I am saying that theories are being made from indirect evidence to address the difficult things being seen which are often farfetched but because it is under the heading of science it is not being questioned as much. I can’t see too much difference for this and using the ideas mentioned above in a God or intelligent agent hypothesis as a possibility.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, scientists don't do a good job of clearly explaining what is speculative and what is not. Part of that is due to how journalists want to publish the extreme speculation instead of the (relatively) boring facts.

So, in your list, multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes, computer simulation, cosmic strings, and a big crunch (before the Big Bang) are pure speculation at this point. Black holes, dark matter, and the Big Bang are NOT speculation at this point. They are solidly proven. Cosmic inflation, dark energy, and abiogenesis are very likely but not proven conclusively.

I would not say they are solidly proven. Remember a theory is just the best guess based on the available evidence and measuring and like theories in the past can be proven wrong and discarded. There is also evidence or rather theorising that says that black holes, dark matter, the big bang etc are wrong.

First of all, a flat earth was *never* a scientific theoryIt was a popular belief that conflicted with even very early scientific opinion (say, that of Aristotle).

Second, the geocentric viewpoint was based on observation, was testable, and was discarded when new evidence came about showing it to be wrong (telescopes helped here). Phlogiston was based on observation, was testable, and was discarded when new evidence came about showing it to be wrong (heat produced by drilling didn't follow the theory). The static universe ideas were pure bias without any real observational basis and were discarded when evidence came about showing them wrong (Hubble did this).

If geocentrism and phlogston were regarded as correct based on observational evidence and then later shoown to be wrong doesnt that show that theories based on observation are at best a temporary guess at what is going on and more than likely incorrect in the greater scheme of things. That would make the theories of today the same and when new discoveries come along this will change the status of what was thought to be correct. The problem I find is that some believe in these theories as though they are the complete and final answer becuase they fit with the observations so well rather than being verifiable.

So, now, what observational evidence do you have to support the 'God hypothesis'? What tests do you propose to determine if that hypothesis is correct or not? In particular, what observation would show the hypothesis to be *wrong*? If you cannot provide one, then it simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

That wpould make many of the current hypothesis and even theories not scientific as they cannot be tested or verified such as multiverses and string theory. My point wasnt that God or an intelligent agent can be verified directly by scientific testing but that there is indirect evidence that can be logically reasoned just as other ideas in science are reasoned with indirect evidence and put forward as an alternative. I have given some of the support for this in my previous posts. But God or an intelligent agent will never be directly verified scientifically as we would have to be in the realm of God which is not of this reality to be even able to see God. That is why people say the evidence has to be indirect with things such as creation ie the fine tuning argument.

On the contrary, the God hypothesis is rejected because it doesn't actually explain anything. What are the *details* of how an intelligence designed and put things into practice? What predictions can be made from the assumption of an intelligent designer that distinguishes that hypothesis from the opposite? What tests will distinguish the two? Why is DNA used as the genetic material rather than some other polymer? Why is there both DNA and RNA in the process to transcribe DNA to proteins? Why are only the 20 or so amino acids used in life given the number that are *possible* to use?

It would be the same as saying what tests can be made to prove a multiverse or a hologram world yet these are valid ideas put forward by science to account for what we see. Like I said it can only ever by presented as indirect support and I have put ofrward some supports in my other posts.

[/quote]And, how does assuming an intelligent designer help in answering any of those questions? What actual results does it suggest? What actual insights does it give? Details, please.[/QUOTE] I have presented those in my other posts. How do you think science can prove some of their ideas about how something came into existence from nothing. Do you think that the answer to this lies in the standard understanding and measuremnets of physics or will it require something that is beyond the parameters of current cause and effect. How do you account for quantum fluctuations, virtual particles or quantum entanglemnet. Not explaining how it works within quantum phycis but how can something like that happen.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to be conflating pre-existing genetic material with pre-existing processes. But you've not shown how that extrapolation is warranted, other than your appeal to incredulity.

The rest of your post is what we've already covered....that there are more evolutionary mechanisms than natural selection.

Pre-existing processes is probably the wrong word. If the changes in living things are biased or set to develop along certain paths which are not open to selection or if creatures have control over their destiny as far as adaptating to their environment or development processes produce certain outcomes besides adaptations then these processes are inbuilt and a part of how living things can change. They are made that way and these are mechanisms that are not subject to the processes of natural selection shifting through a multitude of possibilities to find beneficial changes that can be used. In that sense these mechanisms are already existing within creatures and are a part of how they are able to change and adapt to different environments.

In other words though natural selectionis a mechanism in evolution it is only something that may refine what is already produced by other mechanisms and is not something that creates the feature in the first place which is the result of non adpative processes. This would point to early life havingan inbuilt ability to change and adapt without much input from natural selection. However life was able to evolve complexity it was not becuase of natural selection. In fact the mechanism of selection and random mutations is a threat to complex life and increasing complexity as it introduces harmful mutations that will undermine and destroy what needs to be stable and precise and remthe same. Thats the way I have come to understand it anyway.

 

[Jose Fly]

It’s not as simple as that. The problem is when it comes to some things such as astrophysics and quantum physics no matter what the answer is going to be it is going to fall outside the normal parameters of measurements and beyond testable limits. That is why scientists are coming up with these unreal ideas because they have to so they can fit it to the observations.

This is explained well in the following article on this subject which explains how science has reached a dead end in trying to explain certain things like our universe. Because of the difficultly of uniting the quantum theories with Einstein’s theory of relativity scientists have been forced to come up with elaborate ideas such as string theory and multiverses which fit the observations. The problem is they cannot be verified.

A Crisis at the Edge of Physics
Opinion | A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

This is the problem as stated in the above article that the ideas that scientists are coming up with fit the observations and therefore are regarded as being well supported and then many begin to believe that they have found the answer. But how do we know that scientists are not just creating ideas to suit what they see. The problem is because there is nothing better that fits and cannot be verified it ends up becoming believed by many.

So what we have are scientists trying to come up with explanations for a set of data, and some of those explanations may or may not be testable. So the scientists are working on ways to test those explanations. Some may pan out, some may not. Sounds like good science.

Conversely, who is doing equivalent work on this "God hypothesis"?

One way is through consciousness such consciousness may be something that exists beyond our reality.

What's the difference between "exists beyond our reality" and "doesn't exist"?

Similar reasoning is used for this as with things like multiverses and other ideas from mainstream science when it comes to quantum physics ie Schrodinger’s cat etc.

But again, scientists are working on those explanations and how to test them. I'm not aware of equivalent efforts on those advocating for God.

Because consciousness may exist beyond our reality then this is indirect support for an intelligence behind our reality.

No, that's completely circular. You assume that this "consciousness" might exist, and from that alone you claim "indirect support".

Even science can make an argument for an intelligent agent behind the creation of our universe and life. I mean even multiverses claim that there is another version of you or me or other entities that exists is claiming that there are other realities with conscious beings in them, so what is the difference.

First, I'm probably not the best person to discuss multiverses with. It's not exactly something I've spent time on. But again, if its advocates cannot come up with any means to verify or even test the idea, it'll probably end up in the dustbin of history.

The fine tuning arguement has been a difficult one for science to address and makes a good case for an intelligent agent behind our existence.

I've never found it to be compelling.

The scientists say it, the observational evidence points to it and demands that the answers cannot be within the standard measurements no matter what ideas they come up with. That is why all the ideas posited so far are beyond the possibility of being verified directly.

I am not saying science will never figure it out but that the answer is going to be beyond the parameters of standard measuring and testing.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Until that time comes, I don't see much use in speculating.

Thanks, I enjoyed the video and like Neil DeGrasse Tyson as he explains things well. It makes me realize that in some ways I shouldn’t engage in these types of debates as at the end of the day God, belief and religion are not science as DeGrasse Tyson says. I agree that religion can slow the progress of scientific inquiry but you also must remember that some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by people who had faith. DeGrasse Tyson is not saying we should disregard belief as he mentions that intelligent people also believe and it is a real part of being human and needs to be understood as well. I think he is simplifying a part of human nature that adds to the dimension of being human. It is not all about progress and achievements.

My point is I am not advocating to slow science down and in fact it can reveal a deeper understanding of God’s creation. But even allowing science to have an unrestricted approach it is reaching a point in some ways such as quantum mechanics mentioned above where the answers are outside the way we have measured things for a very long time and cannot be tested.

You're welcome. Tyson's point isn't so much about religion as it is about how in science when we encounter a difficult problem, it's very easy and natural to fall into the "Well, we can't figure this out and it looks like no one will. So it must be God." way of thinking. As he notes by referring to history, sometimes the answer doesn't come around until centuries later.

The point is it is speculated from some indirect evidence that does not lead to their conclusions.

No, not really.

Those conclusions may be more about addressing the difficulty of how life started on earth from non-life then actually being verifiable evidence for life in other parts of the universe. This may be a form of addressing an unanswered problem with an explanation to fill the gap just as God is claimed to be used for.

That's not how the articles you linked to presented it.

This is what I am saying that theories are being made from indirect evidence to address the difficult things being seen which are often farfetched but because it is under the heading of science it is not being questioned as much.

But as you can see, there's quite a bit of debate within the scientific community over these explanations, and their advocates are working to try and meet the standards of science.

I can’t see too much difference for this and using the ideas mentioned above in a God or intelligent agent hypothesis as a possibility.

Who in the "God camp" is working on trying to come up with a means to test God?