some thoughts on creationism

[PureX]

I think we all know that just about most humans speculate, they also think, don’t think, act, react, like, dislike, err, and so on.

The problems aren’t that people speculate, is when they don’t know if their speculations are true or false, or knowing what are probable or improbable, or can’t distinguish between facts and fiction.

In sciences, particularly Natural Sciences (particularly with physics, chemistry & biology), it observations, understanding and logic, to present the models that are testable, and can be tested, tested through more observations, namely EVIDENCE and/or EXPERIMENTS, & the all-important observations - DATA.

These evidence, experiments & data, provide the means to determine which models are correct/true/probable and which are incorrect/false/improbable.

That’s how scientists find out which hypotheses are based on solid & factual foundations…and which are wrong or speculative.

The Scientific Method may not mean much to most people, but it is a set of processes or procedures in which scientists are trying to be objective when understanding nature and the natural processes - WHAT the phenomena are, or HOW the phenomena work.

The real problems to sciences, are not just speculations, but with people that allow their personal beliefs or likes & dislikes to influence & bias science findings (evidence and test results from experiments).

Sure, scientists don’t have the ALL THE ANSWERS, but that’s why scientists are attempting to learn about nature.

But surely understand, PureX, that philosophers and religion followers do as much as speculations, with no means to test and verify what they believe in to be true or accurate. THEY DON’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TOO…not philosophies, not religions, and not mysticisms…not any schools of thought.

But at least, with sciences, scientists that followed the requirements of Falsifiability, Scientific Method & Peer Review, hypotheses and scientific theories can corrected, amended, expanded, and if necessary, discard them if the evidence, experiments & data have refuted these models. Existing theories can be replaced by better alternative models, as long as these alternatives hold up during rigorous testing.

I think you are obsessing over the wrong things, and you seemed to be ignoring when you do a lot of speculations, yourself.

The real problem occurs when we humans start presuming that our speculations about the truth become our truth.

We are all living in a state of profound ignorance, and therefor negotiating life via trial and error. And that's ok so long as we recognize this and are willing to constantly let go of and alter our speculations about what is real and true. But we really don't like this predicament. We really want to "know" what's what so we can control everything to our own advantage. So that we are constantly falling into that delusion, and ignoring our own profound ignorance.

And that's when our troubles begin. Because we begin to lose our ability to change our concepts of reality and truth to accommodate the constant influx of new information and circumstances. We want the truth of things to be static, solidified, and comprehendable, and it's just not. So we start pretending to ourselves that it is, until we believe our own pretense, and begin fighting to defend it. ... A definition of insanity.

Science does not fix this problem of our profound ignorance for us in spite of the fantasies of the scientism cult. Neither does religion or philosophy or art. It is the human condition, and we are humans, so we're stuck with it. But we can at least be honest about it, and so stay open-minded and willing to jettison our current speculations to accommodate new information and circumstances. And stop pretending that science is the magical antidote to our own profound ignorance. Because it isn't. It can give us some increased environmental control, but not much. And even that is a double-edged sword in our hands.

 

[gnostic]

The real problem occurs when we humans start presuming that our speculations about the truth become our truth.

We are all living in a state of profound ignorance, and therefor negotiating life via trial and error. And that's ok so long as we recognize this and are willing to constantly let go of and alter our speculations about what is real and true. But we really don't like this predicament. We really want to "know" what's what so we can control everything to our own advantage. So that we are constantly falling into that delusion, and ignoring our own profound ignorance.

And that's when our troubles begin. Because we begin to lose our ability to change our concepts of reality and truth to accommodate the constant influx of new information and circumstances. We want the truth of things to be static, solidified, and comprehendable, and it's just not. So we start pretending to ourselves that it is, until we believe our own pretense, and starts fighting to defend it. A definition of insanity.

Science does not fix this problem of our profound ignorance for us in spite of the fantasies of the scientism cult. Neither does religion or philosophy or art. It is the human condition, and we are humans, so we're stuck with it. But we can at least be honest about it, and so stay open-minded and willing to jettison our speculations to accommodate new information and circumstances. And stop pretending that science is the magical antidote to our own profound ignorance. Because it isn't. It can give us some increased environmental control, but not much. And even that is a double-edged sword in our hands.

In the last half dozen posts of yours, you seemed to turn everything around - whether it be your anti-science, anti-philosophy, antI-religion sentiments, but you seemed to focus on sciences - where left is right, up becomes down, right is wrong. The only thing that’s right to you, is your personal beliefs or opinions, whatever they may be.

Are you a nihilist?

 

[metis]

Meantime while Darwin wrote origin of species, scientists have a bit of struggle determining what a species is.

Generally speaking, if two types of animals cannot produce fertile offspring after mating, they are considered of different species.

However, when dealing with the past, it's not all that simple.

 

[PureX]

In the last half dozen posts of yours, you seemed to turn everything around - whether it be your anti-science, anti-philosophy, antI-religion sentiments, but you seemed to focus on sciences - where left is right, up becomes down, right is wrong. The only thing that’s right to you, is your personal beliefs or opinions, whatever they may be.

Are you a nihilist?

The scientism crowd wants to believe, and tells everyone else, that science has explained the origin of the universe for us as an unintended accident of physics; by discovering some of the mechanisms of creation and identifying a few of the rules involved. But these explain nothing in terms of origin or a possible purpose, mostly because science cannot search beyond the physics of existence as it already exists, and therefor cannot address the question of it's origination.

To try and address the origin question, we need to move into the realm of philosophy. But the scientism crowd are unable/unwilling to do that. They demand concrete, objective "scientific" answers! But they can't have those. Science can't go there and philosophy doesn't work that way. So they just sit around telling themselves and anyone that will listen about how science has already answered the question (which is hasn't) and the answer is that it's all just a godless, purposeless accident of physics.

I have nothing against science. It's a very useful tool. But it is not a fountain of truth. It's limited, and imprecise, and often misleading. The scientism crowd has elevated it far beyond it's actual capabilities and are making a kind of false idol of it, now. I try to remind these people not to fall into that delusional abyss but the 'true believers' among them can't hear the warning, or understand why it's needed.

 

[Pogo]

The scientism crowd wants to believe, and tells everyone else, that science has explained the origin of the universe for us as an unintended accident of physics; by discovering some of the mechanisms of creation and identifying a few of the rules involved. But these explain nothing in terms of origin or a possible purpose, mostly because science cannot search beyond the physics of existence as it already exists, and therefor cannot address the question of it's origination.

To try and address the origin question, we need to move into the realm of philosophy. But the scientism crowd are unable/unwilling to do that. They demand concrete, objective "scientific" answers! But they can't have those. Science can't go there and philosophy doesn't work that way. So they just sit around telling themselves and anyone that will listen about how science has already answered the question (which is hasn't) and the answer is that it's all just a godless, purposeless accident of physics.

I have nothing against science. It's a very useful tool. But it is not a fountain of truth. It's limited, and imprecise, and often misleading. The scientism crowd has elevated it far beyond it's actual capabilities and are making a kind of false idol of it, now. I try to remind these people not to fall into that delusional abyss but the 'true believers' among them can't hear the warning, or understand why it's needed.

I'm trying to figure out what you are arguing? Science has theories about the big bang and the origin of our current universe, they are well tested and mathematically sound. The problem with where you seem to want to go is beyond that. From a scientific standpoint, the answer is we don't know. The mathematics breaks down like what does it mean when you divide by zeroThere are ideas, and even some hypotheses that might be testable but there is no "these are the rules".
You seem however to be arguing that you know something more, that science in saying we don't know is ignoring some obvious philosophical something. You seem to want to call it creation or purpose or what have you. As armchair philosophy it might even be interesting, but it isn't science and if anyone is practicing scientism here it is you insisting that scientists are ignoring something you can't even define let alone provide evidence for.
What we do know is that the early universe does not behave like the macroscopic universe that we get our "common sense" from and attempting to use seemingly common sense principles to understand it doesn't work.

What is north of the North Pole?

 

[PureX]

I'm trying to figure out what you are arguing? Science has theories about the big bang and the origin of our current universe, they are well tested and mathematically sound. The problem with where you seem to want to go is beyond that. From a scientific standpoint, the answer is we don't know.

Most of humanity wants to go beyond that. We are not happy with "I don't know". It makes us glaringly vulnerable in our own eyes and we don't like that look at all. Even if it is true. So we make up answers that we like, and pretend they are the truth. That's what 'godless scientism' is doing, and that's what religious creationism is doing. And these paths are not that unreasonable if they help people live better, happier lives, until we become 'true believers' in our own imaginary truth. And we start fighting with the rest of the world to make it comply. Then it becomes problematic.

The mathematics breaks down like what does it mean when you divide by zeroThere are ideas, and even some hypotheses that might be testable but there is no "these are the rules".

Mathematics is just another language. We can tell ourselves pretty stories that we like to hear using that language just like we can do it with music, or dance. It doesn't make the stories any more true.

You seem however to be arguing that you know something more, that science in saying we don't know is ignoring some obvious philosophical something.

Science is ALWAYS saying it doesn't know. It's the scientism cult that is constantly claiming that science is revealing the truth.

You seem to want to call it creation or purpose or what have you.

Those are the question we humans are asking about ... the origin and purpose of existence. And thereby our place in it all.

As armchair philosophy it might even be interesting, but it isn't science and if anyone is practicing scientism here it is you insisting that scientists are ignoring something you can't even define let alone provide evidence for.

Science cannot address these questions. The scientism crowd are lying to themselves and to everyone else when it pretend that it can or it has. Philosophy can provide answers, and pathways to them, but it cannot provide "proof". It can only provide us with some logically reasoned possibilities. But that's never good enough for the religious or scientism crowd, They want the pretense of certainty.

What we do know is that the early universe does not behave like the macroscopic universe that we get our "common sense" from and attempting to use seemingly common sense principles to understand it doesn't work.

That's because you've reached the end of the road with the scientific tools and principals. Time to switch to philosophy.

What is north of the North Pole?

The North Star.

 

[Pogo]

Most of humanity wants to go beyond that. We are not happy with "I don't know". It makes us glaringly vulnerable in our own eyes and we don't like that look at all. Even if it is true. So we make up answers that we like, and pretend they are the truth. That's what 'godless scientism' is doing, and that's what religious creationism is doing. And these paths are not that unreasonable if they help people live better, happier lives, until we become 'true believers' in our own imaginary truth. And we start fighting with the rest of the world to make it comply. Then it becomes problematic.

Mathematics is just another language. We can tell ourselves pretty stories that we like to hear using that language just like we can do it with music, or dance. It doesn't make the stories any more true.

Science is ALWAYS saying it doesn't know. It's the scientism cult that is constantly claiming that science is revealing the truth.

Those are the question we humans are asking about ... the origin and purpose of existence. And thereby our place in it all.

Science cannot address these questions. The scientism crowd are lying to themselves and to everyone else when it pretend that it can or it has. Philosophy can provide answers, and pathways to them, but it cannot provide "proof". It can only provide us with some logically reasoned possibilities. But that's never good enough for the religious or scientism crowd, They want the pretense of certainty.

That's because you've reached the end of the road with the scientific tools and principals. Time to switch to philosophy.

The North Star.

I understand now you are a philosophyismist.

 

[Valjean]

The real problem occurs when we humans start presuming that our speculations about the truth become our truth.

We are all living in a state of profound ignorance, and therefor negotiating life via trial and error. And that's ok so long as we recognize this and are willing to constantly let go of and alter our speculations about what is real and true. But we really don't like this predicament. We really want to "know" what's what so we can control everything to our own advantage. So that we are constantly falling into that delusion, and ignoring our own profound ignorance.

And that's when our troubles begin. Because we begin to lose our ability to change our concepts of reality and truth to accommodate the constant influx of new information and circumstances. We want the truth of things to be static, solidified, and comprehendable, and it's just not. So we start pretending to ourselves that it is, until we believe our own pretense, and begin fighting to defend it. ... A definition of insanity.

Science does not fix this problem of our profound ignorance for us in spite of the fantasies of the scientism cult. Neither does religion or philosophy or art. It is the human condition, and we are humans, so we're stuck with it. But we can at least be honest about it, and so stay open-minded and willing to jettison our current speculations to accommodate new information and circumstances. And stop pretending that science is the magical antidote to our own profound ignorance. Because it isn't. It can give us some increased environmental control, but not much. And even that is a double-edged sword in our hands.

Science is not an antidote to the human condition. It's a research modality. Unlike religion, it does not seek stasis. It's open to new information and change. The facts it uncovers are are the best method we have of chipping away at this profound ignorance.
Science doesn't claim to explain the origin of the universe, but it does know more about it than religion does. What science explains are the workings of the material world, and, since eclipsing religion over the past couple of centuries, our understanding of that world has skyrocketed.

Science is not the enemy of religion, although you seem to see it as a profound threat. I'm guessing it's evidence-based explanations threaten your investment in Goddidit! attributions.

 

[metis]

What is north of the North Pole?

Air.

 

[gnostic]

To try and address the origin question, we need to move into the realm of philosophy.

so you want to give up empirical data for some doo-da philosophy.

But the question to you, becomes:

Which philosophy?​

There is no one - “the philosophy“ - PureX.

There are hundreds of philosophies, and if go with particular sect, then there are thousands of sects. They are not the same, and many of these conflict with others, having completely opposite views. Plus there are past philosophies, as well as present & contemporary philosophies, so many of them no longer exist now, while other that have existed for centuries to this day, have outdated ideas.

And more importantly, great majority of them, have nothing to with nature at all, but as you are referring to “the origin”, then there are even fewer of these that focus on cosmology.

So which of these philosophies are you really talking, PureX? But more importantly, whose works are following, the philosopher or philosophers?

Please be very specific, PureX. Too often, you have been vague.

Which philosophy or philosopher(s) are you talking about or following?​

 

[PureX]

Science is not an antidote to the human condition. It's a research modality. Unlike religion, it does not seek stasis. It's open to new information and change. The facts it uncovers are are the best method we have of chipping away at this profound ignorance.

Well, no, it's not the best method. It's a method that works best when investigating the physicality of existence. But there are other methods that work better at investigating other aspects of our experience of existence. And failing to recognize this is exactly the danger of becoming a 'true believer". In this case, in scientism.

Science doesn't claim to explain the origin of the universe, but it does know more about it than religion does. What science explains are the workings of the material world, and, since eclipsing religion over the past couple of centuries, our understanding of that world has skyrocketed.

Science has no eclipsed those other methods of understanding existence. In fact, or glaring abuse of scientific knowledge just serves to show us how insdiquate science alone is in term of providing us real understanding. And your wildly grandiose assessment of it is called 'scientism'.

Science is not the enemy of religion, although you seem to see it as a profound threat. I'm guessing it's evidence-based explanations threaten your investment in Goddidit! attributions.

Science of not the enemy of anything. Neither is religion. But scientism is a real problem. Just like religion is when it becomes a fettish.

 

[PureX]

so you want to give up empirical data for some doo-da philosophy.

But the question to you, becomes:

Which philosophy?​

There is no one - “the philosophy“ - PureX.

Philosophy is an endeavor, not an ideology. It is the endeavor of developing and testing many different possible ideologies in relation to our experience of being. So your clever 'gotcha' question doesn't get you anywhere.

There are hundreds of philosophies, and if go with particular sect, then there are thousands of sects.

Actually, there are many philosophically derived ideologies, but philosophy itself is just philosophy. Just as there are many scientically derived theories, while science is still just science.

They are not the same, and many of these conflict with others, having completely opposite views. Plus there are past philosophies, as well as present & contemporary philosophies, so many of them no longer exist now, while other that have existed for centuries to this day, have outdated ideas.

And more importantly, great majority of them, have nothing to with nature at all, but as you are referring to “the origin”, then there are even fewer of these that focus on cosmology.

So which of these philosophies are you really talking, PureX? But more importantly, whose works are following, the philosopher or philosophers?

Please be very specific, PureX. Too often, you have been vague.

Which philosophy or philosopher(s) are you talking about or following?​

Sorry, but your supposedly clever 'gotcha' question is too poorly contrived to be applicable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence is that the result of these design parameters (possibility and impossibility) is so "intelligent" that we cannot comprehend it. Inferring that the source of them, whatever that source is, is likewise also immensely intelligent.

"we don't know, therefor it has to be something immensely intelligent"

Classic.

Life created itself, because it could. Because the mechanisms involved were all existentially possible, not impossible. So the question is, what set those possibilities and impossibilities? Because that's what ultimately allowed life to exist.

Physics.

Stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a philosopher

Why?

, because this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

I disagree.

Science can only explore the mechanics. It can't explore the origin of the mechanics.

Why couldn't it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Meantime while Darwin wrote origin of species, scientists have a bit of struggle determining what a species is.

And ironically, the more we know the more that "species" turns out hard to define, is evidence for evolution

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What happened to the amino acid formed in the test Urey Miller contrived? Did it keep forming, evolving, or did they throw the junk out.

The experiment wasn't about what happened with amino acids.
The experiment was about how to have them form through natural chemistry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To try and address the origin question, we need to move into the realm of philosophy.

Why?

But the scientism crowd are unable/unwilling to do that. They demand concrete, objective "scientific" answers! But they can't have those.

Why not?

Science can't go there and philosophy doesn't work that way. So they just sit around telling themselves and anyone that will listen about how science has already answered the question

I personally don't know anybody who says this.

I have nothing against science.

Doesn't sound like it.

It's a very useful tool. But it is not a fountain of truth. It's limited, and imprecise, and often misleading.

"misleading"? Care to expand on that?

The scientism crowd has elevated it far beyond it's actual capabilities and are making a kind of false idol of it, now.

This "crowd" seems to only exist between your ears.

I try to remind these people not to fall into that delusional abyss but the 'true believers' among them can't hear the warning, or understand why it's needed.

Right, because they only other available option to not agreeing with you is them "not understanding".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Philosophy is an endeavor, not an ideology. It is the endeavor of developing and testing many different possible ideologies in relation to our experience of being.

Ow? "testing" ha?
How are they tested? What's the methodology?

 

[gnostic]

Philosophy is an endeavor, not an ideology. It is the endeavor of developing and testing many different possible ideologies in relation to our experience of being. So your clever 'gotcha' question doesn't get you anywhere.

it is not a gotcha question.

You were talking about natural sciences are not adequate for the tasks in regarding to the “origin”, whether it to be the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Then it is fair to ask which of these philosophy you are talking about, as you were the one who brought up “philosophy” in the first place. You did write:

The scientism crowd wants to believe, and tells everyone else, that science has explained the origin of the universe for us as an unintended accident of physics; by discovering some of the mechanisms of creation and identifying a few of the rules involved. But these explain nothing in terms of origin or a possible purpose, mostly because science cannot search beyond the physics of existence as it already exists, and therefor cannot address the question of it's origination.

To try and address the origin question, we need to move into the realm of philosophy. But the scientism crowd are unable/unwilling to do that. They demand concrete, objective "scientific" answers! But they can't have those. Science can't go there and philosophy doesn't work that way.

it is funny how you keep accusing all of us, who disagree with you of following scientism, and then say people like me - the so-called “scientism crowd“ about being unable/unwilling to that - as in looking into philosophy, -but YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING to tell me WHICH of these numerous philosophies that you want me to look into.

Why should I answer any more of your questions, when you have been totally uncooperative in answering mine?

 

[PureX]

Ow? "testing" ha?
How are they tested? What's the methodology?

Through the application of logical debate.

 

[Pogo]

Through the application of logical debate.

Question, how do you determine the validity of the axioms you use in your origin philosophies?