[_ Old Earth _] embarass

[reznwerks]

What is truly amazing is that creationists will find all kinds of reasons not to accept evolution( mostly inaccurate and misunderstood) yet will hold up high an idea that has not one shred of hard evidence of being accurate and proclaim it's true. What is embarrassing is how low our educational standards have fallen in regards to science and how the US teaches it. Not only that but include in this the failure of our educational system to teach children how to think and analyze.

 

[Drew]

I agree with the general flavour of this post. However it cuts both ways - there are apparent "naturalists" whose ideas are not well founded either. A classic example is the argument that Intelligent Design (which to me is something completely distinct from "creationism") is inconsistent with science or, to use the words of one poster, "makes science impossible".

This claim might be true if the proponent of ID were to argue that God is in the business of capriciously changing his own laws in such a way that consistent laws of nature cannot be identified. However, and this is a key point which cannot be overemphasized, there is an entirely legitimate hypothesis that God "set" the laws of nature to be what they are and then basically stopped "meddling" in the universe that unfolded according to those laws. Under such a scenario, there is indeed the possibility of science-empirical investigations of the world will simply result in a picture of a universe whose lawfulness just happens to be have been set by God.

There are those who will say such an hypothesis is not really useful since there is no way to make any progress at all concerning establishing its likelihood of being true. I can certainly understand such a position. I think there is a counterargument, but that will have to wait.

Another poster has argued that violations of the laws of nature are simply not possible. I think this position is obviously mistaken - the laws of nature are observed regularities, not logical necessities (there is a difference, please think about it). If I drop an apple a million times and it falls each time, this does not necessarily mean it will fall the million and first time. If there is a reason why God cannot choose to "change" the rule for the million and first drop, I have yet to see it presented in any of the threads I have been following around here.

So let's remember there is incorrect thinking on both sides of these kinds of issues.....

 

[scitso]

Intelligent Design (which to me is something completely distinct from "creationism")

I'm glad someone understands this, I've had trouble convincing people in other forums of this destinction.

Another poster has argued that violations of the laws of nature are simply not possible. I think this position is obviously mistaken - the laws of nature are observed regularities, not logical necessities (there is a difference, please think about it). If I drop an apple a million times and it falls each time, this does not necessarily mean it will fall the million and first time. If there is a reason why God cannot choose to "change" the rule for the million and first drop, I have yet to see it presented in any of the threads I have been following around here.

May I ask, when has a law of nature ever been observed being broken(minus biblical accounts, which aren't evidence but heresay)? We are quick to say that when something that seems to go against the laws of nature is has done just that. But, man has only just started to discover the laws that govern nature, and it is likely that much of what we think now is wrong.

 

[Drew]

May I ask, when has a law of nature ever been observed being broken(minus biblical accounts, which aren't evidence but heresay)? We are quick to say that when something that seems to go against the laws of nature is has done just that. But, man has only just started to discover the laws that govern nature, and it is likely that much of what we think now is wrong.

Hello Scitso:

I am glad that there are others who can see the distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I agree totally with what you have written above. What I was originally commenting on was a claim, by another poster in another thread, that it is impossible for observations to be made that are inconsistent with the laws of nature, as presently understood. I simply think such a position is based on a misunderstanding of what science is. Let me ask you what I think is a clear question. If I drop an apple, is it possible that the apple will not fall to the earth? (This is not a trick question - I am not interested in answers like "A bird may grab it and fly off"). If you say "yes", we are, I think, on the same wavelength. If you say "no", we have further debate to undertake (and that's no crime)....

 

[scitso]

Oh, ok, that you for the clearification.

 

[Quath]

The problem with ID is that it doesn't really make any real claims. It just states something was designed. It does not define how to tell if something is designed or by what process or anything that can be tested.

For example, one could claim a Creator designed by using the method of evolution. How would you test that? You can't so it is not really a scientific hypothesis.

Most of the ID arguments have been anti-evolution (which is not proof ID itself) or some easily disproved ideas. For example, one person stated that DNA was digital (not analog) and thus had to be encoded by an intelligent agent. However, carbon monoxide is also just as digital and we know it doesnt take an intelluence to make it.

Or one may argue that the creator would design by function. This can be disproved by showing organs that have the same function but are different. For example, human eyes have light passing through stuff before it hits the nerves while in other animals it hits the nerves directly. This would be an argument against design by function.

Ultimately, what we know is always a guess. We just have to reduce the uncertainity down to the point where we are saying it is truth, even though we can never be 100% sure of that. So far the only truth I have seen is that something exists. Everything else is an assumption.

Quath