Round III, ~ James Hilston
Round III, ~ James Hilston
Evolution: Science or Science Fiction?
13 December 2005
My Round Three post entails the following:
I. Homebrew
II. Purpose and Persuasion
III. Remarks, Rebuttals and Questions Concerning Stratnerd's Claims.
IV. Selected Responses/Counter-Questions: Stratnerd's Answers to Hilston's Questions.
V. Stratnerd's Questions.
VI. Stratnerd's Comments, No Questions
VII. Back to [Stratnerd's] questions …
I. Homebrew.
I'm impressed with the success of your first batch. I'm now actually tempted to give it a try. I'm big fan of Stout ales; be they Irish, German, whatever. And of bock lagers. I like the fact that you can "nurse" them. But I'm not much of a connoisseur, but I think I do qualify as an aficionado. I'll drink just about anything you put in front of me. I was on a wheat beer kick for a while. Sadly, economy usually wins over quality. But I am delighted when I can find a reasonable compromise. Hence, I usually have a case of Pennsylvania-brewed Yuengling lager in my basement, and few cold ones in the 'fridge.
Best of luck on the Irish Stout. If you're ever in the Pittsburgh area, we should arrange to meet at the
Penn Brewery, home of the Penn Pilsner (see page 15 of
Beer For Dummies). I'll buy.
II. Purpose and Persuasion.
As an interesting segue back to the debate, Stratnerd writes:
Stratnerd said:
I say “most important” because it is likely to be the only thing I say that has any consequence to anyone.
Based on what I've read in the Grandstands, this isn't true. I've noticed that there are apparently some creationists who who have enjoyed your posts and claim to have benefited from them. More importantly, however, it should be noted that our direct goal should
not be to convert people of the opposing camp. If it were, then success or failure in this debate would depend upon our ability to persuade, and not on the cogency and defense of our respective arguments. While I think it is reasonable to wish that our arguments will persuade others, I don't think it should be our primary concern.
Stratnerd said:
In fact, I'd like to see a poll on TOL for creationists and see how many people could be swayed by any argument that I could make.
I think this misses the point of what we're doing. I'm not interested in seeing a poll on TOL or Internet Infidels or any freethinkers' fora to see how many non-Creationists could be swayed by any argument I could make. My goal is for my arguments to be coherent and clear -- regardless of what anyone else thinks of them -- which I hope will cause people to think and to critically re-examine their views, whether or not they agree with me. If I should convince you or anyone else of anything, that would be a bonus, but it's not my primary purpose.
[Back to the impersonal third-person reference]
III. Remarks, Rebuttals and Questions Concerning Stratnerd's Claims.
A. Stratnerd on evolutionist vs. Evolutionist
Stratnerd said:
I don’t concede the use of Evolutionists vs. evolutionist. Agnostics, theists, and atheists all come to the same conclusion via methodological naturalism
HQ18:Please elaborate on that statement. What do you mean that "all come to the same conclusion via methodological naturalism"?
Stratnerd said:
The difference between the two boils down to ontological arguments about the existence of the supernatural independently of evolution. Therefore, the commonly used and understood terms atheists, agnostics, theists and deists should be used.
HQ19: Which label do you claim for yourself? And how would you define it?
Stratnerd stated as one of his goals:
Stratnerd said:
3. Show that creationism is a tenuous position to have, given evidence that we can all agree on.
To what "evidence that we can all agree on" do you refer?
B. Stratnerd On Jim’s Arguments.
Stratnerd said:
1. Regularities exist, only God can create regularities, therefore Genesis is true.
I would not agree with that syllogism. Regularities exist, not because God created them (as if to reify "regularities" as "things"), but because He determined to create a universe that reflected His own nature and character. That is to say, God, in His nature and character, is logical and orderly. He created the universe for His pleasure, and it pleased Him to create it in a way that is analogous to His own qualities and attributes.
Stratnerd said:
2. Because Evolution/science assumes regularities, we should all be Biblical literalists (given argument 1)
First, I disagree with the conflation of Evolution and science. As Stratnerd admitted above, "Evolution is an explanation ..." It is a way of looking at the world on the basis of blind
a priori faith commitments. Evolutionists must mythically assume the uniformity of nature, but have no warrant for that assumption. Whereas Creationists view the uniformity of nature as neither an assumption nor as axiomatic. Rather, given the existence and nature of God, creationists rightly expect nature to behave in a uniform fashion, and for induction to be a reliable method of systematizing knowledge and of generating principles.
Stratnerd said:
3. There’s evidence for Biblical literalism – scientists chose to ignore it (but we really don’t need to go that far, given argument 1)
I disagree with the statement. There is evidence for the verity of the Bible and the existence of God, but Evolutionists reject the only conception of the universe within which that evidence, indeed
all evidence, makes sense, comports with reality, and affirms the intelligibility of human experience.
Stratnerd said:
4. Theistic Evolutionists and all Christian non-literalists are all atheists (but unwittingly creationists because they believe in the uniformity of nature).
I'm not sure how Stratnerd arrived at this conclusion based on what I've written, because actually the opposite is true. I believe all human beings, deep down (some more deeply than others), know that God exists and that they are accountable to Him. My view of Theistic Evolutionists is that their concession to Evolution undermines that which they affirm to be God's Word. They're not atheists. They're rebels.
It should go without saying that everyone believes he or she has a correct view of the world. No one in his or her right mind would deliberately affirm a view that he or she thought was incorrect. So any complaint in this or any discussion about the certainty with which an opponent holds to his or her convictions is irrelevant. We all think we're right. That's a given. Let's move on.
C. Stratnerd on Evolution as Science.
Stratnerd said:
Unfortunately, I never found an attempt at a definition for “science” or what is considered scientific.
From my first post:
[Definition of] Science. My attempt to secure a consensus on the definition of science was inconclusive. Based on what I saw in my "travels", I would characterize science in three ways. First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs. I personally believe in the verity of the scientific method and in science as a tool for acquiring knowledge. I do not discount or discredit the scientific enterprise or treat of it as invalid, illegitimate or inadequate in the pursuit of knowledge and truth, or of understanding our world and our place in it. Finally, I do not deny the ability of an anti-theist or agnostic to do science, to formulate theories, or to apply science to the real world. However, I do not believe the anti-theist/agnostic can do so rationally and in accordance with their espoused worldview. The anti-theist or agnostic [E]volutionist has no justifiable grounds upon which to do, to formulate or to apply science, as science is based on premises that make no sense according to the anti-theist or agnostic evolutionary worldview.
Stratnerd said:
I gave two definitions, the common threads being methodological naturalism and falsifiability. So, [SA_HQ11] I consider falsifiability to be an element of a scientific approach.
HQ11b :Why? On what rational basis does Stratnerd consider falsifiability to be an element of a scientific approach?
Hilston had asked:
HQ1: Can Stratnerd give an example of the application of the
Scientific Method that would establish Evolution (as the explanation for the diversity of life we see in the world) as Science and not pseudoscience? [Emphasis added]
Stratnerd outlined the Scientific Method as: "observe, make a hypothesis, test it or make observations, then reject or support hypothesis."
Stratnerd said:
And there are numerous ways to falsify Evolution, for example [SA_HQ1]: fossils in the oldest strata can be discovered which demonstrate a uniform biota through time.
HQ1b:Obviously, Stratnerd could not have
observed the stratification process in order to know that the strata are different ages. He was not there to watch it. Thus, Stratnerd invokes a fundamental
a priori assumption of his view of the universe in order to interpret certain phenomena and to support his Evolutionary conceptualization of the geologic column and of geologic time.
Hilston previously wrote:
I'm happy to use Popperian concepts to explore to what extent Evolution can be regarded as science.
Stratnerd said:
but then there are no conclusions provided.
I'm not the one positing Evolution. Applying the Popperian thesis to Evolutionary claims, e.g., that life came from non-life, that acausal mindless chance spawned causal laws, that non-living, non-conscious matter became conscious and living, etc., it seems to me that none of these things can be falsified.
Stratnerd said:
Also, there’s a hint that falsification as a key element in the first post concerning S.J. Gould’s comments but then falsification isn’t a good thing in the second post (an explicit statement is a must just to keep this conversation as clear as possible).
I quoted Gould in order to show that he made a distinction between science and pseudoscience, and gave his criteria to ascertain that. My claim is that Evolution doesn't pass Gould's own criteria. I wrote:
Gould's criticism of evolutionary psychologists is fitting, exposing the fact that their claims cannot be tested and are therefore unscientific. But what does that say of Gould's own claims that cannot be tested? What does it say of Stratnerd's unwarranted assumptions, which cannot be tested?
Stratnerd said:
Jim doesn’t agree with falsifiability as an element of science and no comment on methodological naturalism [MN].
I did indeed comment on it. Recall Stratnerd's description of MN, followed by the excerpt in which I addressed the claim of MN:
Stratnerd wrote: "Methodological naturalism assumes that only natural forces are at work. The reason why I say that it really doesn’t matter is that it is impossible to make predictions when supernatural forces are at work." [Emph. added -- JH]
Hilston previously wrote: As I indicate in my definition above, the Creationist perspective of nature is that of uniformity. Nature is predictable and conforms to natural laws. However, the Creationist recognizes that nothing would or can exist without the supernatural, namely God, holding all things together and sustaining the natural order and the uniformity, which God, by His creative and sustaining power, imposes upon creation. The Creationist view is that supernatural forces are indeed at work, that God Himself ensures that nature behaves in a uniform way. Moreover, if there were no God at work holding the universe together, then the scientific method would not work.
MN blindly assumes that nature is self-sustaining and that the supernatural is not behind it, sustaining and preserving it.
Stratnerd said:
It would be fruitful (to the point) for the reader and myself if you just say “yes” or “no” then justify it or a “yes, but” would even get to the point.
I agree. So let me be unequivocally clear: Falsifiability? No. Methodogical Naturalism? No.
Stratnerd said:
I just feel the topic is going more toward “Does God exist?” and that’s been done here. The topic of this post is “Evolution: Science or Science Fiction” – let’s not change the topic since we both agreed to discuss this.
This is a valid concern, and I can see why one might think the topic is changing. However, consider the claims that are being made by each side of this debate. On the one hand, you have a claim that living organisms mindlessly arose from non-living matter. Now, I could simply focus my efforts on proving that Evolution is not science, and never bring up the subject of God at all. I could take the position of extreme Humean skepticism and reduce all scientific inquiry to utter absurdity. However, on the other side of this debate is the Creationist claim that living organisms were specially created by a Divine Hand. So
of course the debate is going to deal with the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned Deity. Note that the root word of "Creationist" is Creator.
Of course the non-Theist Evolutionary view is going to be challenged by the Creationist to give sufficient warrant for their God-less assumptions about the universe. As I stated in my initial post, it isn't enough to simply discredit Evolution as science. I should attempt to prove that Creationism is true, and therefore I must argue for the existence of the Creator. And thus, for me to press my claim that the Creationist view is superior to the Methodological-Naturalist/Falsifiability-Framework view, the necessity of the existence, nature, character and attributes of the Creator will be brought to bear upon the former. In summary, while the topic question as stated is not explicitly about God's existence, the implication of the topic question is precisely about God's existence, especially if I'm to do more than disprove Evolution as science. To make a positive case for my position, arguments concerning God's existence are unavoidable.
D. Stratnerd On Creationism as Unscientific:
Or How To Be Hoist On One's Own Petard
(apologies to Wm. Shakespeare,
Hamlet, Act III, Scene iv)
Stratnerd said:
The common elements of the two definitions of science (not “my” definitions but the definitions used and understood by scientist around the world) involve falsifiability and methodological naturalism (MN).
I will take this opportunity to explain a
two-phase refutation of Stratnerd's offensive. On the one hand, I am presented a standard that cannot be warranted apart from tacit appeals to magic (a.k.a. axioms). On the other hand, I am presented a standard by someone whose own view does not live up to that standard.
1. Phase One goes like this: Before MN and Falsifiability can be warranted as criteria for what constitutes science, they cannot be arbitrarily stipulated, but should be "justified," to borrow a term from Stratnerd. I submit that the Evolutionist cannot rationally justify these criteria, and that they are accepted blindly and axiomatically by the Evolutionist.
2. Phase Two goes like this: Even if we assume the verity of MN and Falsifiability as valid standards of what constitutes science, Evolution collapses under the weight of these criteria.
a. Weight (or petard) #1: Methodological Naturalism (MN): Stratnerd defines MN as "the assumption that we can only test natural explanations." One of the explanations of Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the uniformity of nature, which cannot be tested without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption does not come under the purview of MN, Evolution fails as science on this point.
b. Weight (or petard) #2: Falsifiability: Similarly, Stratnerd says he considers "falsifiability to be an element of a scientific approach." However, one of the explanations of Evolution is the unwarranted assumption of the inductive principle (that individual cases infer general principles). As a foundational tenet of the Evolutionist conception of the universe, induction cannot be falsified without begging the question or appealing to some "extra-natural" principle. Since this assumption is not falsifiable, Evolution fails as science on this point as well.
"O, what a rash and bloody deed is this!"
Stratnerd said:
Another aspect of science is methodological naturalism but the very nature of supernatural creation is antithetical to a naturalistic explanation.
Exactly. On the one hand, we have a view (Creationism) that is antithetical to naturalistic explanation. On the other hand, we have a view whose very foundation makes unwarranted appeals to "extra-natural" assumptions, magic axioms, and mythical inventions.
This seems a fitting place to offer a definition:
science fiction n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. [
American Heritage Dictionary (online)]
E. Stratnerd On Creation/Biblical Literalism as a Tenuous Explanation:
Or How To Be Hung On One's Own Gallows
(apologies to Haman, Esther 7:10)
Stratnerd said:
If one suspends the fact that Biblical literalism cannot be falsified or ignores MN and isn’t science, then we can take an information-theoretic approach (this is the other way to do science that I outlined in my first post but still relies on falsification and MN).
In a Popperian framework, the hypotheses are fixed and the data are variable. In an information-theoretic approach, the data are fixed and the hypotheses are variable ...
In my previous post, I asked Stratnerd about his agnosticism, his view of cosmogony (the origin of the universe), of the laws of logic, of human value and of morality. He dismissed the questions with this statement:
Stratnerd said:
"Interesting questions but I fail to see how my personal views, ontological views are relevant to these larger issues."
What Stratnerd does not seem to realize is that our positions are not merely two sets of truth claims competing for rational superiority, but rather, entire systems of thought [i.e. "larger issues"], held by real human beings who are trying to make sense of the their world, to understand its workings, and to cope with our place in this world and our roles in it. That is to say, we cannot separate such views of ultimate significance from who we are, what we think, the judgments we make, and how we live.
In the absence of responses from Stratnerd, I will attempt to surmise how he might answer in order to apply the
Information-Theoretic framework to Stratnerd's claims. Note that I am not agreeing with the verity of this method. I am only applying it to demonstrate that Stratnerd's view cannot stand up to the scrutiny of his own espoused method of science.
In his first post, Stratnerd wrote,
"Usually presented as an alternative, which I prefer to think of as a complement, to Popperian science is the information-theoretic framework where multiple hypotheses compete to explain a particular observation." Stratnerd says in an Information-Theoretic approach, the data are fixed and the hypotheses are variable. So,
Given the fixed data of morals, human value and law of logic,
Let x = Hypothesis (Explanatory view of reality)
The question then is: Which hypothesis better explains the data without adding "unwarranted complexity"?
Hypothesis #1: The Evolutionary hypothesis. This view says that things can become their opposites; that moral principles popped out of amoral matter; that molecules in motion spawned human dignity; that acausal chance and chaos produced universal laws of logic.
Hypothesis #2: The Creationist hypothesis. This views says that the Creator made the universe and all that is in it, that moral principles come from His righteous character, that human dignity comes from being created in God's image, and that the laws of logic reflect the nature and attributes of God.
Applying the concept of parsimony/Occam's Razor (which I do not affirm, but merely apply here for the sake of argument), can there be any doubt which view fares worst according to the Information-Theoretic approach? Never mind the fact that the Information-Theoretic approach itself cannot be validated or verified without appealing to "extra-natural" explanations.
HQ20: On what rational grounds does Stratnerd assert the principle of Occam's Razor?
F. Stratnerd on Facts and Evidence.
Stratnerd said:
To most working scientists, there are “brute facts”.
Please give an example. I've never seen one.
Stratnerd said:
Most phenomena are mum when it comes to creationist explanations. Take for example, how would God create a horse?
Note the double standard. The Evolutionist feels he has a right to ask "how would God create a horse?" and expects the Creationist to be able to give a play-by-play. If God had chosen to reveal the procedure, we could have that discussion. But He didn't. But note, when the Evolutionist is pressed to explain how life arose from non-living matter, etc., it's somehow OK for them to appeal to magic. The view that the existence and attributes of the Creator can account for, make sense of, and explain the existence of horses and laws and mathematics and morality and human dignity is a rational and coherent view. However, the explanation that all things, concrete and abstract, diversified and unified, emerged from some primordial singularity is neither rational, nor coherent. If the avoidance of unwarranted complexity were a valid criterion for truth claims, certainly the Evolutionist view fails miserably.
Stratnerd said:
As I pointed out in my first post, we need to be able to justify our inclusion of hypotheses.
Here is the justification. On the Evolutionary view, no rational sense can be made of the very things we experience and encounter on a daily basis. On the Creationist view, all of human experience becomes intelligible. That is a strong justification to include it as a hypothesis.
G. When Worldviews Collide.
Recall my definition of worldview from my first post:
Worldview: A way of looking at the world; a network of presuppositions; one's most basic and foundational beliefs about reality, knowledge and morality.
Stratnerd said:
Evolution as a worldview
It isn’t. Evolution is an explanation based on methodological naturalism. Atheism (ontological naturalism), Agnosticism, Theism and Deism are world views. ALL of these world views can incorporate Evolution – evolutionary doesn’t care which worldview you have. You only need to accept that organisms change through time.
Evolution provides to human beings a way of looking at the world. It includes a vast array of presuppositions that are unprovable, unfalsifiable, extra-natural and do not come under the purview of Methodological Naturalism. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and evolves like a duck, then it's a worldview. Or something. Like. That.
Stratnerd said:
Biblical literalism as a worldview.
The only ones that cannot accept Evolution are Biblical literalists, a particular sect of Judeo-Christian believers. This rejection of Evolution has nothing to do with evidence, logic, rationality, are any other [God-given] tools available to the human mind.
This is incorrect. Judeo-Christian Theists, who seek to understand and to apply the Bible according to a grammatico-historical hermeneutic, reject Evolution because it undermines the very foundation of evidence, logic, rationality, etc. Evidence and facts do not make sense in a Godless, mindless universe. In order to make any sense whatsoever of evidence, logic, rationality, etc., the Evolutionist must presume upon the Biblical/Creationist position in order to do so.
Stratnerd said:
The JC Bible is inerrant because literalists believe it to be.
Actually, it really is inerrant and infallible, whether anyone believes it or not. Its inerrancy/infallibility is attested in the Bible itself, and that inerrancy/infallibility is demonstrated in every area of human experience, including the pursuits of Evolutionary biologists. Every act or thought of the rational mind screams of God's existence and attributes and of man's obligation to Him.
Stratnerd said:
Doing so, they need to invent ad hoc explanations about the world in order to make nature fit their theology.
There is nothing invented on the Creationist view. It is all in accordance with what God has revealed about what He did when He created, and subsequent events in history. What could be more of an ad hoc invention than the idea that the current diversity of life somehow magically sprang from the unity some singular pre-primordial matter
Stratnerd said:
Jim provides excellent examples of ad hoc explanations (inventions) ... 1. Accelerated Decay; 2. Water Vapor Canopy; 3. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics; 4. Rapid Ice Age Following the Flood. These don’t come from observing nature.
No, they come from scientific modeling based on the testimony of the Bible. They are not invented ad hoc. The ideas and models have a Source, namely, the Bible.
Stratnerd said:
There was no water vapor canopy, no evidence for accelerated decay, no evidence of catastrophic plate tectonics or rapid ice ages – these were invented.
Again, not invented, but proclaimed or inferred by the Biblical text.
Stratnerd said:
Creationists twist nature to fit their theology instead a more rational and fruitful tact of accommodating reality into their theology ...
Reality cannot be rightly understood apart from theology. Nothing is twisted, but rather declared and taught in the Bible. On the Evolutionist view, in which the very tools needed to understand reality are presumed without warrant, there can be nothing
but twisting in the absence of a cogent justification for the assumptions that are blindly embraced and "axiomized."
Stratnerd said:
– doing so you’ll be in good company (e.g., Einstein, Ron Fisher) you will also avoid the need to make up stuff as you go along investigating the natural world (and saying things like miracles do not violate natural law).
Again, the claims posited by Creationist scientists are not "made up" or ad hoc inventions. They originate in the text of the Bible. If the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, as it claims to be, then one should rightly expect that whatever the Bible says about nature, about cosmogony, about anthropology, about biology, etc. would be accurate and true because the testimony came from the One who created it all and sustains it all.
HQ21: Of the Biblical miracles Stratnerd is familiar with, which one would he claim was a violation of natural law?
(Round III post, cont'd)
H. The Stuff of Myth and Legend
Stratnerd said:
To make the absolute claim that Biblical literalism is the only rational worldview only expresses the limitations of that person’s mind – it is not a statement about reality.
If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is God's inerrant/infallible Word, then it follows that the Creator has exclusive prerogative to determine and declare through His Book what is and is not reality. Not only so, but if the Bible is God's Word -- which says "the fear (i.e. due reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" -- then it follows that those who presume to use the God-given tools of logic and mathematics, while ignoring Him completely, become empty and futile in their thinking. This is what the Bible says. Ignore this God, Who is behind the logical abilities of the mind, and all of your reasoning reduces to absurdity. And this, not surprisingly, is exactly what we see in the Evolutionary view of reality or of cosmogony. When pressed to explain and justify the basic tools of life that we all take for granted, or to give a basic account of where life originated or how things have become the way they are, the Evolutionist must resort to an invented ad-hoc story that reaches back into an imagined, unobserved past, passed on to subsequent generations by way of blind tradition, the basic premises of which are not to be questioned, but ignorantly assumed and embraced, lest the very fabric of so-called science be torn asunder. This is the stuff of
myth and legend, not science.
myth ('mith)
n. 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. [
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary;
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]
IV. Selected Responses/Counter-Questions: Stratnerd's Answers to Hilston's Questions. HQ4: Although he states that it does not matter, it would be helpful to know: Does Stratnerd affirm methodological naturalism? Or does he believe there are supernatural forces at work?
SA_HQ4: Methodological naturalism is assumed when answering questions scientifically.
HQ4b: Why?
SA_HQ4 (continued): ... I just assume that problems unexplained are that – unexplained and I seek natural explanations because they are the only ones I can work with. This is how all of science works from Evolution to genetics to epidemiology to ecology.
HQ4c: Does Stratnerd believe someone who does not affirm Evolution is hindered in his or her ability to conduct scientific inquiry in such fields as genetics, epidemiology and ecology? If so, why?
HQ5: Why does Stratnerd believe that the working of supernatural forces in nature would preclude making predictions.
SA_HQ5: Because I do not know how the supernatural works.
HQ5b:If you don't know how it works, then how can you know that the working of supernatural forces in nature would preclude making predictions?
HQ6: Stratnerd wrote: "... induction is speculation and we don't know if this new idea is worth anything until it proves its mettle." What is the new idea, and how would one go about proving its mettle?
SA_HQ6. It is not clear to me what you mean by “what is the new idea” ...
HQ6b: Stratnerd was the one who used this phrase (see above). I just want to know what is meant by "this new idea".
SA_HQ6. (Continued) ... Proving it’s mettle means trying to show it was false.
HQ6c:How does one go about showing that induction is false (or true, for that matter)?
HQ7: Please elaborate on this. Why can't someone say "ID predicts that DNA ..."?
SA_HQ7: I been giving reasons for this throughout my two posts. Best answered by asking you to provide an example. Simply fill in the blank and justify your answer.
HQ7a: I don't know anything about DNA (well, very little anyway). Nor do I espouse Intelligent Design. All I want to know is, why can't someone say "I.D. predicts that DNA ..."? On my view, I would say, "Creationism predicts that DNA would be orderly and comprehensible."
SA_HQ8b: My science is non-theistic – as scientists do but I have an uncertain ontology – I make no claims and I haven’t given the source of morals much thought –if any.
HQ8c: I assume you consider yourself a moral person, and that you live by particular guidelines of right and wrong behavior. What is/are the source(s) of your morals? And how do you justify them?
V. Stratnerd's Questions.
SQ1: I asked about the logic behind regularities and how this proves Genesis. But I didn’t see the chain of thoughts that back up this assertion.
HA_SQ1: We must justify our use of logic, our trust in the inductive principle and our reliance upon the uniformity of nature. The only way to do that rationally is to recognize the verity of Genesis. If the God of the Bible exists, as I claim He does, and if the Bible is His inerrant, infallible Word, as I claim it is, then it follows that the account in Genesis of God's creative work is trustworthy. The only other way to warrant one's use of these tool is to place blind faith in a mythical story about magical axioms.
SQ1a: How does the presence of regularities prove that God exists?
HA_SQ1a: See
HA_SQ1:, above. If you require further detail, I will be happy to oblige.
SQ1b: How does one account for non-regularities such as chance events? Or do you suggest that there’s nothing random in nature?
HA_SQ1b:The latter. Randomness does not exist in nature. It is merely a theoretical construct.
SQ1c: What is the connection between regularities and Genesis being true. I asked before and got “Without God, logic and connections could not exist.” This doesn’t answer the question. Please do.
HA_SQ1c: I hope I answered this in
HA_SQ1:, above. Again, if you desire further explication, I can accommodate.
SQ2: Do you have any working definition of science? Do you intend on comparing your definition with the nature of Evolution?
HA_SQ2: See section III.C.,
"Stratnerd on Evolution as Science", above. For part 2 of your question, I have intended all along to compare
your definition with the nature of Evolution.
SQ3: Do you know of any way to know about the mechanics of creation so we might be able to make specific and testable predictions about organism – thus turning creationism into creation science (you’d be a hero to the creationist community).
HA_SQ3: To answer your question directly, no, but I don't see how it is relevant, or how the inability to know the mechanics of creation precludes creationism from being creation science. I find it interesting that you want to know the mechanics of creation before you will allow Creationist-scientists to make predictions about organisms. But
you don't know the mechanics of life from non-life, yet
you presume to make predictions about organisms. It sounds like a double standard to me.
SQ4: If you come up with a testable hypothesis, can you provide relevant data.
HA_SQ4: I'm no biologist, but I have a friend or two who might be able to assist me. I will return to this question when I've had time to consult with them.
SQ5a: On your take on regularities and life, does sexual recombination occur and mutation occurs in some predictable way as an extension of your uniformities. I don’t get the connection and your criticism of evolution when you said:
Quote:
The Evolutionary paradigm will affirm uniformity on the one hand, but then deny uniformity in order for evolutionary change to actually take place. My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.
HA_SQ5a:Yes. The denial of uniformity is required of the Evolutionary view if diversity is going to arise out of singularity, if non-living matter is going to give rise to living organisms, etc.
SQ5b: (or just asking a another way) are you saying that changes don’t happen?
HA_SQ5b:I believe changes do happen, but not to a sufficient degree to account for life (period) or the current diversity of life we see in the world today.
SQ6a: Do you really think that sentience is a general property of animals? Across taxa means that it’s found in disparate groups –say, snails and deer.
HA_SQ6a:Yes, I followed the nomenclature. Loosely defined, perhaps. I was trying to play along, despite not being a biologist. Even single-celled animals are sentient, according to the broad definition of sentience, right? On further thought, I might say a general property of animals that Creationism predicts is extension and movement in space.
SQ6b. How do you justify it? Come up with some biological principals that would lead you to predict that snails and deer would be sentient.
HA_SQ6b:God created the animals and distinguished them from plants and other non-living matter. As animals, they would have defining characteristics, such as being sentient, defined as "1. Having sense perception; conscious. 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." Being able to move would be another.
Hilston said:
However, the Creationist recognizes that nothing would or can exist without the supernatural, namely God, holding all things together and sustaining the natural order and the uniformity, which God, by His creative and sustaining power, imposes upon creation.
SQ7: [but related to the questions above] Can you back up this assertion? Do just have to believe it?
HA_SQ7.I don't see a rational alternative, unless one wants to believe in magic. Either a Personal and Powerful Creator made and sustains all that exists, or it's magic. Even if one buys the Occamic tenet of parsimony, unwarranted complexity should incline you toward the Creator hypothesis instead of the magic hypothesis.
Hilston said:
Not only can the Evolutionist not observe or explain, let alone test, how nature could give life and sentience to non-living non-conscious matter, ...
SQ8: Why?
HA_SQ8. Because the Evolutionist has no proven reliable tools with which to observe or explain anything. On the Evolution thesis, the very methods of data collection, let alone evaluation, are suspect, which you admitted, above.
Hilston said:
The Creationist, on the other hand, is not only able to do science, but he can do so with a general confidence in the tools and methods he employs, as well as his sensory faculties, and not relegate induction to "speculation."
SQ9: really? So Walt Brown’s hydroplate idea is True just because he’s a creationist? The water vapor canopy idea is True just because the poser is a creationist? Are you saying you understand the purpose seen in creation just by looking at it and there’s no need to back up anything?
HA_SQ9. No, I did not claim that Creationists are always right. All people use the tools of logic and the methods of science to varying degrees. Some are more successful than others, for reasons unrelated to whether or not they are Creationists. The point is, all else equal, the Creationist alone can do science with a
justified general confidence, whereas the Evolutionist, as you admitted above, must ever be tentative even about the tools and methods he uses to do his science.
VI. Stratnerd's Comments, no questions
Stratnerd said:
Peer-reviewed means that it was sent out to the scientific community at large – not other creationists THAT MUST SUPPORT THEIR WORK. This ain’t peer-review.
My experience with the ICC included "hostile witnesses." As often as was possible, Evolutionist reviewers were sought out to critically assess the research and science presented in Creationist papers. Should I bother wondering if Evolutionist scientists include the Creationist scientific community in their peer review process?
Stratnerd said:
But science works best when we go out and try to prove something false not hold a symposium ...
I agree. So do the scientists I met and observed at the symposium. But it's not either/or (prove something false vs. hold a symposium). I've witnessed heated debate in the public presentations as wells as in discussions and special sessions. It's not a big "love fest" as some might imagine. I can only speak from my experience with the ICCs. I have no experience with other such conferences, and I know of no other comparable peer-reviewed symposium on the planet that holds to the academic rigor that the ICC does.
Stratnerd said:
Papers go out to your “competitors” that try and poke holes in your material. If you provide a tight argument and do your methods correctly then your competitor has no choice but to accept it.
Correct. That was our goal. That's what we did. Hundreds of papers were rejected because they didn't pass muster. Or pass the mustard.
Hilston said:
I am merely demonstrating that Stratnerd's assertion is false and misleading.
you put this with my assertion that I generally stay away from creationist material – why would I lie about this try to mislead?
I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to imply deliberate deception on your part. I merely meant that your assertion was misleading, not that you personally are intentionally trying to mislead. I make misleading assertions all the time, without intending to actually mislead. Please forgive my indelicate choice of words. I'll try to be more careful hereafter.
Hilston said:
It is possible, indeed pervasive, that human beings hold tenaciously to contradictory beliefs.
Stratnerd said:
But this is exactly how I see your claims that regularities prove miracles (ie., instantaneous creation).
What is contradictory about regularities proving miracles?
Hilston said:
I do not wish to be disrespectful to these people, and my remarks are aimed only at their ideas and not them as people, but I submit that by trying to have their Christian cake and to eat it, too (believing also in Evolution), they have violated and undermined the teachings of the Bible they profess to uphold.
Stratnerd said:
This is an assertion that needs to be backed up. I wonder why Einstein and Fisher never figured this out?
Intellect alone does not grant a correct understanding of scripture. It's a heart issue, a moral issue. The fear of the Lord, not intellectual horsepower, is the beginning of knowledge.
VII. Back to [Stratnerd's] questions …
Hilston said:
Miracles are not the breaking of natural laws. They are an interruption of the natural order ... When Jesus and Peter walked upon the water … Now whether the molecular structure of the water was changed or angels were under the water supporting them, I do not know and the text does not say ...
Stratnerd said:
If miracles aren’t the breaking of a natural law/regularity then I have no idea what a miracle is then.
Irregularity, yes. Breaking a natural law, no. Biblically defined, a miracle is anything that causes awe or wonder due to an interruption in the regularity of the natural order. An axehead floating, the appearance of an angel, a blind man having his eyes (and by implication, the occipital lobe of his brain) repaired, etc.
SQ10: What is the difference between a natural law and natural order? How do know which is which? Can you give an example of each?
HA_SQ10: Natural law describes forces and fields that operate in nature. Natural order merely describes the regularity we observe in nature.
SQ11: What then is a miracle?
HA_SQ11: An interruption in the regularity of the natural order.
Hilston said:
That's the story that evolutionists tell. There's another story, that evolution was largely accepted by those who wanted seemingly scientific reasons to reject the authority of the Bible. The "success" of the Enlightenment was to bring into vogue the questioning of Biblical authority and of God's sovereign claims upon men's lives.
Stratnerd said:
So people weren’t convinced by evidence and you read Darwin’s mind to understand his incentive?
No one is convinced to change their perception of the universe by evidence, because one's perception of the universe that which governs how evidence is viewed, evaluated, or even if it is accepted evidence. Also, there are plenty of writings, by friends, close relatives, loved ones, of Charles Darwin and other movers and shakers of that period to betray the true impetus behind what they published and how they published it.
Stratnerd said:
If similarities are the result of God being consistent and purposeful then what do dissimilarities suggest?
Hilston said:
SQ12: How do you know? Other than using circular reasoning?
HA_SQ12: It's logical, and it's revelatory. Two sure inferences. For example, the Bible gives excellent descriptions of
locust anatomy and how their physiology functions. That's not circular. It's logical. How is it, in a worldview such a Evolutionism where the very tools and methods of science are tentative and suspect, that one would ever come to the conclusion (as if conclusions are even available to someone who cannot justify the use of their tools & methods) that < dissimilarities = dissimilar purposes> is circular reasoning?
SQ13: why make the distinction?
HA_SQ13: Two reasons: (1) Common descent of dissimilar organisms violates logic and reality and cannot account for the diversity of life we see around us, and (2) God's Word indicates special, recent (young earth) creation, which precludes the kinds of changes asserted by the Evolutionary view.
SQ13b: Where does it go from being homology = common descent to homology = common designer?
HA_SQ13b: I don't know. But I think, armed with the tools and methods of science, coupled with a cogent biblical worldview, a Creationist biologist could provide an answer.
Excellent questions, Stratnerd! That was a blast! Unfortunately, despite my efforts to be less prolix and more pithy, I find myself, yet again, at around 7,700+ words (at least I'm consistent). For those of you who actually read these things, I admire your tenacity. I hope your eyes aren't glazing over. Depending on how much time I have, I will see you all in the Grandstands. Now it's back to changing the starter in my van.
In your grocer's freezer,
Jim