Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[Guy Threepwood]

That's what science is, hypothetical explanations. When data supports those hypotheses, as it does in the case of the evidence I have shown you, then that is a supported hypothesis. That's how science works.



So all you do is repeat your assertions in the face of contradictory evidence. That's not how science works.

Phrenology, canals on mars, steady state, classical physics were all hypothetical explanations. If 'that's what science is', then I'm rather less interested in what is 'science', more interested in what is actually true.


Call it science or not, we can test, observe, replicate photosynthesis. It ain't simply hypothetical, it's 'academic popularity' is a non issue

We simply cannot say the same for multiverses, astrology or Darwinian evolution, true or not, we are stuck with philosophical speculation, extrapolation, guesswork, reconstruction, simulation, and a good deal of personal emotional attachment in many cases

Mutations that appear to be random, support the occurrence of mutations that are, so far, unpredictable to us, so were the motions of planets in the sky, so are the pits on a DVD without the code to interpret them - not particularly conclusive of anything beyond the observation itself- certainly not conclusive proof of a single cell morphing into a human being by millions of copying errors!

extraordinary claims..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's what science is, hypothetical explanations. When data supports those hypotheses, as it does in the case of the evidence I have shown you, then that is a supported hypothesis. That's how science works.



So all you do is repeat your assertions in the face of contradictory evidence. That's not how science works.

Phrenology, canals on mars, steady state, classical physics were all hypothetical explanations. If 'that's what science is', then I'm rather less interested in what is 'science', more interested in what is actually true.


Call it science or not, we can test, observe, replicate photosynthesis. It ain't simply hypothetical, it's 'academic popularity' is a non issue

We simply cannot say the same for multiverses, astrology or Darwinian evolution, true or not, we are stuck with philosophical speculation, extrapolation, guesswork, reconstruction, simulation, and a good deal of personal emotional attachment in many cases

Mutations that appear to be random, support the occurrence of mutations that are, so far, unpredictable to us, so were the 'dances' of planets in the sky, so are the pits on a DVD without the code to interpret them - not particularly conclusive of anything beyond the observation itself- certainly not conclusive proof of a single cell morphing into a human being by millions of copying errors!

extraordinary claims..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's what science is, hypothetical explanations. When data supports those hypotheses, as it does in the case of the evidence I have shown you, then that is a supported hypothesis. That's how science works.



So all you do is repeat your assertions in the face of contradictory evidence. That's not how science works.

Phrenology, canals on mars, steady state, classical physics were all hypothetical explanations. If 'that's what science is', then I'm rather less interested in what is 'science', more interested in what is actually true.


Call it science or not, we can test, observe, replicate photosynthesis. It ain't simply hypothetical, it's 'academic popularity' is a non issue

We simply cannot say the same for multiverses, astrology or Darwinian evolution, true or not, we are stuck with philosophical speculation, extrapolation, guesswork, reconstruction, simulation, and a good deal of personal emotional attachment in many cases

Mutations that appear to be random, support the occurrence of mutations that are, so far, unpredictable to us, so were the motions of planets in the sky, so are the pits on a DVD without the code to interpret them - not particularly conclusive of anything beyond the observation itself- certainly not conclusive proof of a single cell morphing into a human being by millions of copying errors!

extraordinary claims..

 

[exchemist]

Intelligent design and methodical naturalism are not mutually exclusive.

If you determine that the Rosetta stone required intelligent design, is that a supernatural explanation?

Archaeology (which is the study of historical artifacts) may sometimes use natural science, but nobody would do so in order to "determine" the Rosetta Stone is an artifact.

It is in any case impossible to develop objective criteria for so-called "design" in nature.

ID makes untestable claims, relies on ignorance to assert "design" arbitrarily, and has done no scientific research. It is a social engineering project of the American religious right, started by a lawyer.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's wrong. In the absence of evidence you say "I don't know" and search for evidence.

Creationism is evidenced, not your theories.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Creationism is evidenced, not your theories.

Where is the evidence? What is it? Is anyone ever going to present it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Archaeology (which is the study of historical artifacts) may sometimes use natural science, but nobody would do so in order to "determine" the Rosetta Stone is an artifact.

right, so archaeology is a field of science which uses known fingerprints of intelligent design to distinguish between artifacts and 'natural' objects - it is not restricted to 'natural' being the only possible explanation

Similarly, without good cause to rule one or the other out, a forensic scientists at the scene of a fatality must consider both intelligent agency and 'unguided accident' as possible causes. In both cases there are precedents that might steer investigation in one direction or the other

So what 'good cause', what precedent, what reference for how biospheres are 'usually' created... are you using to rule one explanation out entirely- and declare the other 'true by default'?

I have no need to forbid natural causes from playing a role, I simply allow both possibilities to compete on a level playing field

It is in any case impossible to develop objective criteria for so-called "design" in nature.

ask an archaeologist what criteria they use..

But the most objective measure we have for anything is ultimately the math. If a gambler in a casino plays 4 royal flushes in a row, chance is not impossible- it's just not the least improbable explanation.

ID makes untestable claims, relies on ignorance to assert "design" arbitrarily, and has done no scientific research. It is a social engineering project of the American religious right, started by a lawyer.

Not at all, like archaeology, ID simply lifts the arbitrary and scientifically baseless restriction on possible causes. From there we can identify the least improbable one based on positive knowledge, the known fingerprints unique to different possible explanations.

If a forensic scientist arbitrarily rules out intelligent agency, the guy with the knife in his back MUST have accidentally fallen on it- the restriction is not helpful in determining the true cause.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Phrenology, canals on mars, steady state, classical physics were all hypothetical explanations. If 'that's what science is', then I'm rather less interested in what is 'science', more interested in what is actually true.

Those ideas were disproven through the scientific method, a method that you don't seem too keen on using.

We simply cannot say the same for multiverses, astrology or Darwinian evolution, true or not, we are stuck with philosophical speculation, extrapolation, guesswork, reconstruction, simulation, and a good deal of personal emotional attachment in many cases

Events in the past can leave evidence in the present which can be used to test hypotheses. We can use the scientific method to test evolution.

Mutations that appear to be random, support the occurrence of mutations that are, so far, unpredictable to us, so were the motions of planets in the sky, so are the pits on a DVD without the code to interpret them - not particularly conclusive of anything beyond the observation itself- certainly not conclusive proof of a single cell morphing into a human being by millions of copying errors!

extraordinary claims..

Now you will deny direct observations. That's not helpful.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Creationism is evidenced, not your theories.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I can go over one of those specific pieces of evidence if you want. Just pick one.

 

[exchemist]

right, so archaeology is a field of science which uses known fingerprints of intelligent design to distinguish between artifacts and 'natural' objects - it is not restricted to 'natural' being the only possible explanation

Similarly, without good cause to rule one or the other out, a forensic scientists at the scene of a fatality must consider both intelligent agency and 'unguided accident' as possible causes. In both cases there are precedents that might steer investigation in one direction or the other

So what 'good cause', what precedent, what reference for how biospheres are 'usually' created... are you using to rule one explanation out entirely- and declare the other 'true by default'?

I have no need to forbid natural causes from playing a role, I simply allow both possibilities to compete on a level playing field





ask an archaeologist what criteria they use..

But the most objective measure we have for anything is ultimately the math. If a gambler in a casino plays 4 royal flushes in a row, chance is not impossible- it's just not the least improbable explanation.




Not at all, like archaeology, ID simply lifts the arbitrary and scientifically baseless restriction on possible causes. From there we can identify the least improbable one based on positive knowledge, the known fingerprints unique to different possible explanations.

If a forensic scientist arbitrarily rules out intelligent agency, the guy with the knife in his back MUST have accidentally fallen on it- the restriction is not helpful in determining the true cause.

Archaeology is not a field of natural science. It is the study of historical artifacts, not nature. As I understand it, it is very rare that the issue of whether or not a find is an artifact or not comes up. If there is doubt, then this is dealt with by comparing against similar artifacts, i.e. by reference to known human patterns of design.

None of this sheds any light at all on how so-called "design" in nature could ever be established. The acid test is that no evidence of "design" has been presented by the ID movement. They do not do any research. They can't. There is nothing in their claims that suggests what research should be done to test them.

All they do is argue, rhetorically, like you. A lawyer's approach, but not a scientist's.

Science can - in principle - treat "God" as a part of nature, and look for interference in natural processes, as evidence. But without evidence of such interference, Ockham's Razor tells us to ignore the hypothesis as unnecessary. Do we see this interference happening in our labs today? Nope. So what do you think evidence of "design" would look like? The ID movement has had about twenty years to come up with some - and failed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Archaeology is not a field of natural science. It is the study of historical artifacts, not nature. As I understand it, it is very rare that the issue of whether or not a find is an artifact or not comes up. If there is doubt, then this is dealt with by comparing against similar artifacts, i.e. by reference to known human patterns of design.

None of this sheds any light at all on how so-called "design" in nature could ever be established. The acid test is that no evidence of "design" has been presented by the ID movement. They do not do any research. They can't. There is nothing in their claims that suggests what research should be done to test them.

All they do is argue, rhetorically, like you. A lawyer's approach, but not a scientist's.

Science can - in principle - treat "God" as a part of nature, and look for interference in natural processes, as evidence. But without evidence of such interference, Ockham's Razor tells us to ignore the hypothesis as unnecessary. Do we see this interference happening in our labs today? Nope. So what do you think evidence of "design" would look like? The ID movement has had about twenty years to come up with some - and failed.

Exactly- if we restricted archaeology to 'natural science' we'd be forced to come up with some extraordinary explanations for things like the Rosetta Stone- like an infinite probability machine (multiverse?) as the only means by which such a thing could ever come into being without ID

The scientific evidence in question is information, the same reason that if we see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, we don't assume the random action of the waves did it- even if there is zero direct empirical evidence of a person ever being there, the information alone makes ID a less improbable explanation.

Occam's razor favored classical physics over quantum mechanics- the simplest explanation is certainly usually the most tempting, but nature has shown no desire to succumb to the same laziness! And therein lies a fundamental bias in 'naturalism'- which is encapsulated by that fallacious principle. A skeptic of naturalism has no reservations about digging ever deeper, uncovering ever more sophisticated layers of reality.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly- if we restricted archaeology to 'natural science' we'd be forced to come up with some extraordinary explanations for things like the Rosetta Stone- like an infinite probability machine (multiverse?) as the only means by which such a thing could ever come into being without ID

The scientific evidence in question is information, the same reason that if we see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, we don't assume the random action of the waves did it- even if there is zero direct empirical evidence of a person ever being there, the information alone makes ID a less improbable explanation.

Occam's razor favored classical physics over quantum mechanics- the simplest explanation is certainly usually the most tempting, but nature has shown no desire to succumb to the same laziness! And therein lies a fundamental bias in 'naturalism'- which is encapsulated by that fallacious principle. A skeptic of naturalism has no reservations about digging ever deeper, uncovering ever more sophisticated layers of reality.

Don't be silly. Archaeology uses some applied science, though as it is concerned with human history and culture it really belongs with the humanities rather than the sciences. Engineering and forensic science are, likewise, applied sciences. They do not study nature. Forget them. Comparisons between them and natural sciences are pointless.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Don't be silly. Archaeology uses some applied science. Engineering and forensic science are, likewise, applied sciences. They do not study nature. Forget them. Comparisons between them and natural sciences are pointless.

An archaeologist must have knowledge of both natural science and intelligent causes to distinguish between both kinds of objects found in a site, they cannot rule either cause out by principle before they even start digging!

So I'm asking you, what reason do have to rule one of these two causes out from this particular field? other than personal preference?

If you conclude that the cause of the universe must be natural, because cosmogony is a purely 'natural science'- that would be the ultimate example of circular reasoning, would it not?

 

[exchemist]

An archaeologist must have knowledge of both natural science and intelligent causes to distinguish between both kinds of objects found in a site, they cannot rule either cause out by principle before they even start digging!

So I'm asking you, what reason do have to rule one of these two causes out from this particular field? other than personal preference?

If you conclude that the cause of the universe must be natural, because cosmogony is a purely 'natural science'- that would be the ultimate example of circular reasoning, would it not?

All an archaeologist needs to do is distinguish a piece of painted pottery from mud.
As I have already said, he does so having in his mind a whole series of patterns of previous human artifacts with which to compare his find. You obviously can't do that with alleged "design" in nature, unless you have an equivalent, pre-established pattern of such "designs" which have already been reliably attributed to the designer.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All an archaeologist needs to do is distinguish a piece of painted pottery from mud.

well there you go, and if the paint and mud are 10k years old, that can take a trained eye and a delicate hand.

As I have already said, he does so having in his mind a whole series of patterns of previous human artifacts with which to compare his find. You obviously can't do that with alleged "design" in nature, unless you have an equivalent, pre-established pattern of such "designs" which have already been reliably attributed to the designer.

Nobody even recognized what language the Rosetta stone was written in, just that it was information of some kind- no natural force could create it

Likewise, what pre-established pattern compelled the guy working at SETI to scrawl WOW in the margin? without knowing anything else whatsoever that could be reliably attributed to ET?Just the fleeting appearance, crude as may be, of something resembling specified information drifting across galactic air waves- a simple mathematical sequence ..

While a vast array of math, information, algorithms, digital code, permeate all space/time/matter/energy and biology

We only have one scientifically verifiable means by which such information systems can be originated, no matter where they may be dug up, and it ain't chance!

Not to say chance is impossible, but we are talking about inference to the best known explanation, not merely the simplest hypothetical one..

 

[exchemist]

well there you go, and if the paint and mud are 10k years old, that can take a trained eye and a delicate hand.



Nobody even recognized what language the Rosetta stone was written in, just that it was information of some kind- no natural force could create it

Likewise, what pre-established pattern compelled the guy working at SETI to scrawl WOW in the margin? without knowing anything else whatsoever that could be reliably attributed to ET?Just the fleeting appearance, crude as may be, of something resembling specified information drifting across galactic air waves- a simple mathematical sequence ..

While a vast array of math, information, algorithms, digital code, permeate all space/time/matter/energy and biology

We only have one scientifically verifiable means by which such information systems can be originated, no matter where they may be dug up, and it ain't chance!

Not to say chance is impossible, but we are talking about inference to the best known explanation, not merely the simplest hypothetical one..

No, "inference to the best explanation" is just boilerplate ID garbage. It is fundamentally unscientific to argue: "We don't understand this, therefore Goddidit is the best explanation."

What ID deliberately avoids recognising is that in science there is no pressure to provide an explanation before you have one. Science is quite happy to say "we don't know yet" and carry on researching. In science, you only propose or infer a hypothesis when you have evidence supporting it and you can put it forward in such a way that it can be tested.

What testable hypothesis does ID propose and how would it be tested?

I'll be really impressed if you can answer that convincingly, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, "inference to the best explanation" is just boilerplate ID garbage. It is fundamentally unscientific to argue: "We don't understand this, therefore Goddidit is the best explanation."

or to say 'we don't understand this, so it must be a spontaneous naturalistic accident'.

But again ID is explicitly an argument in the affirmative, we DO understand how such information systems can be originated intelligently and recognize the unique fingerprints of this known process
But we do NOT understand how they can be originated spontaneously, this cannot be repeated, tested, measured

What ID deliberately avoids recognising is that in science there is no pressure to provide an explanation before you have one. Science is quite happy to say "we don't know yet" and carry on researching. In science,

oh WE certainly agree on that, as I already posted today- not everyone shares our respect for basic scientific principles
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins

I don't declare ID as 'indisputable fact', it's one of many possibilities- the least improbable I would argue, but I feel no need for ad hominem attacks on anyone who has a different position

you only propose or infer a hypothesis when you have evidence supporting it and you can put it forward in such a way that it can be tested.

What testable hypothesis does ID propose and how would it be tested?

I'll be really impressed if you can answer that convincingly, but I won't hold my breath.

Darwinism explicitly predicted, as fundamental to the theory, that events like the Cambrian explosion were, in large part, artifacts of an incomplete record, to be filled in and smoothed out over time

While Skeptics predicted that the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances were real... not illusions

The evidence has revealed an ever more staccato record, to the point that even Darwinists splintered off into 'punctuated equilibrium' finally agreeing with what was once written off as 'religious pseudoscience'

That's just one example, there are many other specific predictions

 

[exchemist]

or to say 'we don't understand this, so it must be a spontaneous naturalistic accident'.

But again ID is explicitly an argument in the affirmative, we DO understand how such information systems can be originated intelligently and recognize the unique fingerprints of this known process
But we do NOT understand how they can be originated spontaneously, this cannot be repeated, tested, measured



oh WE certainly agree on that, as I already posted today- not everyone shares our respect for basic scientific principles
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins

I don't declare ID as 'indisputable fact', it's one of many possibilities- the least improbable I would argue, but I feel no need for ad hominem attacks on anyone who has a different position



Darwinism explicitly predicted, as fundamental to the theory, that events like the Cambrian explosion were, in large part, artifacts of an incomplete record, to be filled in and smoothed out over time

While Skeptics predicted that the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances were real... not illusions

The evidence has revealed an ever more staccato record, to the point that even Darwinists splintered off into 'punctuated equilibrium' finally agreeing with what was once written off as 'religious pseudoscience'

That's just one example, there are many other specific predictions

Name some of these many specific predictions, please.

Regarding gaps, or "jumps and sudden appearances", these are not a prediction of ID, that's what the fossil record is always like, due to the way organisms are only occasionally fossilised and then only occasionally discovered.

As for punctuated equilibrium, that became part of evolutionary theory a decade before ID was born or thought of. So the job ID would have to do - if it were science - would be to offer an account with superior explanatory power to punctuated equilibrium. That would entail an ability to predict better than punctuated equilibrium what gaps, jumps and sudden appearances we should be expect to be found in future and/or with what characteristics. Can you give examples?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

or to say 'we don't understand this, so it must be a spontaneous naturalistic accident'.

But again ID is explicitly an argument in the affirmative, we DO understand how such information systems can be originated intelligently and recognize the unique fingerprints of this known process
But we do NOT understand how they can be originated spontaneously, this cannot be repeated, tested, measured

We can directly observe mutations spontaneously occurring in species, so that would be wrong. We don't observe this supposed intelligence changing any bases in the genomes of any species.

Darwinism explicitly predicted, as fundamental to the theory, that events like the Cambrian explosion were, in large part, artifacts of an incomplete record, to be filled in and smoothed out over time

That is false. "Darwinism" makes no predictions about the rate of fossil preservation or discovery. All the theory predicts is what mixtures of features will be seen in the fossils we do discover.

While Skeptics predicted that the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances were real... not illusions

They ignore fossils that fill those gaps, so their claims are disingenuous.

 

[exchemist]

We can directly observe mutations spontaneously occurring in species, so that would be wrong. We don't observe this supposed intelligence changing any bases in the genomes of any species.



That is false. "Darwinism" makes no predictions about the rate of fossil preservation or discovery. All the theory predicts is what mixtures of features will be seen in the fossils we do discover.



They ignore fossils that fill those gaps, so their claims are disingenuous.

Your point about rate of fossil preservation and discovery raises an interesting question about evolution. What The Hon. Galahad* and we are really debating concerns the rate at which evolutionary processes occur, something that we only discern imperfectly from the fossil record.

I suppose the punctuated equilibrium idea is a recognition that evolution can proceed quite fast when conditions drive it hard enough - a lot faster than the smoothed out average rate one sees for a typical family of species over very long periods of geological time.

It looks as if the IDers are trying to latch onto the long period average rate of change in order to claim that anything faster must be a Goddidit.



*Hon. Galahad Threepwood, a P G Wodehouse character.