This thread is not about evolution.

[Autodidact]

It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.

 

[Big_TJ]

It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.

Are you playing God here? How do you expect to get something out of nothing? There is no way creationist can give you something that they DO NOT have (eg. a hypothesis).

 

[Michael Hawley]

Hi Autodidact,

I like your thoughts, but I see a small problem using the scientific process. The scientific process requires causality, and creationism is not bound by this. Can we manipulate the rules slightly to keep this idea going?

Mike

 

[Riverwolf]

The scientific process requires causality, and creationism is not bound by this.

How, exactly, does that work? Isn't God described as the "first Cause", and therefore, from the creationist standpoint, doesn't creationism by its very definition require causality?

Besides, where in that outlined process is causality even mentioned, so where did you get the idea that it does?

 

[dallas1125]

By creationists, do you meand those who believe god created the earth? Or those who believe in the literal bible story?

 

[Noaidi]

Hi Autodidact,

I like your thoughts, but I see a small problem using the scientific process. The scientific process requires causality, and creationism is not bound by this. Can we manipulate the rules slightly to keep this idea going?

Mike

If we manipulate the rules, would it still be a verifiable and reliable science? To be regarded as a science, it would have to follow scientific procedure. What manipulations were you thinking of?

 

[Autodidact]

By creationists, do you meand those who believe god created the earth? Or those who believe in the literal bible story?

Review the OP. I mean those who assert they have a scientific hypothesis for the variety of species on earth, which is different from the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and which they believe conforms to the Biblical story.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.

If it didn't happen in the other thread so there's no reason why it will happen here, but let's see how deep the rabbit hole gets....

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not holding my breath, myself.

 

[RedOne77]

Are you playing God here? How do you expect to get something out of nothing? There is no way creationist can give you something that they DO NOT have (eg. a hypothesis).

I think that's the point of this thread. To show, once again, that "creation science" is not actually science. I myself think that very few creationists have the gall to put creationism in the scientific box despite they routinely use phrases like "true science" and "creation science" and go on and on on how evolution isn't real science. Of course, if they ever decided to put creationism in the scientific arena, and they actually understood it, they would find out quickly that creationism is not science and is not supported by the scientific evidence. Either that or they'll conclude that science is a gigantic waste of time as it does not deal with reality, AKA the fundamentalist interpretation of ancient texts and their infallibility.

 

[Gunfingers]

Hi Autodidact,

I like your thoughts, but I see a small problem using the scientific process. The scientific process requires causality, and creationism is not bound by this. Can we manipulate the rules slightly to keep this idea going?

Mike

The scientific process requires no such thing. Causality was scientifically disproven by Werner Heisenberg.

 

[Michael Hawley]

How, exactly, does that work? Isn't God described as the "first Cause", and therefore, from the creationist standpoint, doesn't creationism by its very definition require causality?

Besides, where in that outlined process is causality even mentioned, so where did you get the idea that it does?

By causality, I mean cause and effect. For every effect there must be a cause. Nature is governed by it, such as fossils are the result of natural explanations. "Super"-nature is not, such as miracles. The miracle just might be supernatural, but it has affected something in nature. If, for example, angels pulled someone out of a burning car and suddenly it exploded. How this person got out of the car cannot be exlpained naturally. There was no natural cause for this natural effect. This is what I was getting at.

Because of this, we cannot look for natural effects to prove the supernatural, thus, the scientific process (collecting natural effects such as fossils in order to discover the cause) cannot be used to credit or discredit creationism.

By the way, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle falls into causality.

Sincerely,

Mike

 

[LuisDantas]

By causality, I mean cause and effect. For every effect there must be a cause.

Not really. Even in everyday situations, most effects are in fact a result of several simultaneous causes, which may be loosely related to each other, if at all.

We human beings are biased towards seeking relationships of cause and effect, and simple ones at that. Nature has no duty to fulfill such expectations.

Nature is governed by it, such as fossils are the result of natural explanations. "Super"-nature is not, such as miracles. The miracle just might be supernatural, but it has affected something in nature. If, for example, angels pulled someone out of a burning car and suddenly it exploded. How this person got out of the car cannot be exlpained naturally. There was no natural cause for this natural effect. This is what I was getting at.

Unfortunately, that amounts to choosing to assume a supernatural (and therefore untestable) effect just because no natural cause has been found.

That is always risky, since one can never know if there aren't causes that he simply isn't aware of. Ultimately miracles and other supernatural explanations are reliant on the desire to believe in them, and may therefore be freely disbelieved.

Because of this, we cannot look for natural effects to prove the supernatural, thus, the scientific process (collecting natural effects such as fossils in order to discover the cause) cannot be used to credit or discredit creationism.

Except that while you are attempting to present that as a limitation of the scientific method, it is actually a shortcoming of supernatural explanations, including creationism. They are inherently placeholders that don't really explain anything and have no power to impose themselves over actual explanations, such as the ToE.

 

[PennyKay]

Just to add, in regard to quantum physics in particular, Quantum mechanics has abandoned the idea of deterministic causation between events, but it certainly has not abandoned causation. Instead it makes use of a kind of probabilistic causation.

 

[Big_TJ]

Except that while you are attempting to present that as a limitation of the scientific method, it is actually a shortcoming of supernatural explanations, including creationism. They are inherently placeholders that don't really explain anything and have no power to impose themselves over actual explanations, such as the ToE.

Yeah, its essentially the "God of the Gap" theory. God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

By causality, I mean cause and effect. For every effect there must be a cause. Nature is governed by it, such as fossils are the result of natural explanations. "Super"-nature is not, such as miracles. The miracle just might be supernatural, but it has affected something in nature. If, for example, angels pulled someone out of a burning car and suddenly it exploded. How this person got out of the car cannot be exlpained naturally. There was no natural cause for this natural effect. This is what I was getting at.

Because of this, we cannot look for natural effects to prove the supernatural, thus, the scientific process (collecting natural effects such as fossils in order to discover the cause) cannot be used to credit or discredit creationism.

But we can look for natural effects to prove that what was originally seen as supernatural turned out to be perfectly natural.

I'm of the opinion that the supernatural doesn't exist: if something exists, be it dualist God, ghosts, angels, whatever, they are natural, and therefore possible to be studied scientifically, even if we currently lack the knowledge and tools to do so.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle falls into causality.

Show me.

 

[Sunstone]

It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.

Oh goodie! I hope somebody uses the word macroevolution™! I just love it when people use big scientific words to describe their understanding of how the world works!!!!!

I'm so excited.

 

[Gunfingers]

Show me.

I too am curious as to how Heisenberg, who demonstrated that some causes have no effect, utterly destroying the concepts of causality and scientific determinism, is still somehow subject to cause-and-effect.

 

[Autodidact]