The Irrationality of Creationism
After a bit of debate on an open thread with GoRight regarding the intersection of creationism and science, I had a bit of time to think about what he said and the points that were raised throughout the thread.
GoRight was basically advocating that creationists should not be dismissed out of hand because their beliefs are compatible with what we can prove using science. Philosophically speaking, he is, of course, correct. One cannot distinguish between the Earth being 6,000 years old and 4.5 billion years old, or even 10 minutes old for that matter. A deity or otherwise supernatural being, assuming he is omnipotent, can tinker with our surroundings, memories, etc. so that we would believe that what science tells us is true.
Creationists essentially believe that we are in what my philosophy instructor referred to as a thick illusion. In a thick illusion, you cannot ever find out if your objective measurements or observations of natural phenomena are representative of the true nature of reality, regardless of how clever or knowledgeable you may be. In popular culture, The Matrix adequately covered the idea of being able to escape from a thick illusion. My instructor argued (and I agreed) that if we do indeed live in a thick illusion, then reality is, for all intents and purposes, the illusion. Indeed, if we cannot ever know if we are living in an illusion, then what practical use is there to believe that we do?
Since science is the only objective method by which we know to measure natural phenomena, we must treat these results as facts, regardless if they are only facts inside our illusion.
Creationists posit that a deity interferes in some way with objective measurements of the age of the Earth for a plethora of reasons. They choose to live believing that no matter what measurements or observations science makes, that these observations are wrong. This behavior is irrational as per the following scenario:
A creationist motorist is at the side of the road with a flat tire. A good samaritan comes by and offers to help. The motorist explains that his wheel makes a horrible noise as it goes down the road, but no problems can be found as far as he can tell. The samaritan can clearly see the flat tire and offers to help pump it up, but the creationist refuses. He says that the tire has sufficient air pressure, but something else must be the matter. The samaritan is confused, but being a nice guy he still tries to help. He gets out his tire gauge and shows the creationist that there is only 2lb/sq. in. of pressure in the tire, well below the recommended pressure. The creationist laughs. He explains that the tire gauge may read 2lb/sq. in., but in reality there is plenty of air in the tire. God is simply testing his faith in this matter by causing the gauge to be in error.
Clearly, the creationist is irrational. Regardless of whether or not the tire has sufficient air in reality, the tire does not have sufficient air in the illusion. Since the creationist lives in the illusion, he must treat all objective observations made in the illusion as gospel (so to speak) or else he will find it very hard to travel in his car. This is true of any fantasy environment, not just thick illusions. Take video games for instance. In many first-person shooters, you can shoot an adversary in the head and they will not die. One would not do well in the game if they imposed the rules of our universe on the game's universe or vice versa.
Whether or not creationism is true is irrelevant. The fact is that we must base our choices and decisions based on objective observations of our surroundings. To do otherwise is irrational, and if you're irrational, I reserve the right to disregard most everything you say.
Edit: I should point out that I'm talking about young-earth creationism here. By no means am I making reference to all creationism.
- stinerman's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Yes, very well argued
I like the flat tire analogy.
Science of course acknowledges that it is adopting the rules of the illusion (our natural world) and it only claims relevance within this domain. Science doesn't try to calculate what God is up to, and shouldn't.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
well written
I always thought the creationist argument was irrational as deception is not a very good/moral way to test the faith :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Is that the real issue?
Is the issue of creationism, belief, and science really one of just ego?
There is a good article on this very topic in this month's Discover magazine. Here's a snip but I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.
When you bash creationists, what is your motivation ---to change their minds? Obviously not.
I'm not talking about specifics here. I don't want creationism in schoolbooks. And I agree with the thrust of your diary. But the issue is bigger than just what is rational; it's interpersonal.
Edit: And if you've never read SJG's Nonoverlapping Magisteria, you should. His was one of the clearest scientific and anthropological minds of the last century.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Nothing that sinister
I'm just pointing out that to believe as they do is irrational. Take that for as much as you think it's worth. I don't expect a bunch of fundamentalists, to read this and immediately convert to secular humanism.
I don't think a belief in a deity is necessarily, in and of itself, a negative as Christopher Hitchens does. Even I hesitate to call myself an atheist because there are many things not explained simply by science (the nature of consciousness for one). I do have a problem with throwing science by the wayside when it doesn't match up with what some holy book says. Religion and science reside in mutually exclusive domains. There is no overlap between the two.
Science is the objective method we have to answer questions about the nature of our universe, but it too is limited. Religion is for filling in the gaps that science leaves behind.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I doubt anyone disagrees
I doubt anyone here disagrees that what they believe is irrational. In fact, most of us in the West would agree with you, and have agreed with you for decades. To excerpt the SJG essay from 1997
There will always be some portion of people who hold strange beliefs. As Ender points out, many of us are irrational more often than we care to think.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I must say
The notion that Catholicism or Judaism doesn't have a tradition of holding the Bible to be inerrant is just incorrect. The doctrine of inerrancy is well established in Judaism and Christianity. It wasn't until the later part of the second millenium that the liberal seminaries actually started to challenge that in any kind of a widespread fashion.
It is really unthinkable to imagine Jewish or Christian practice and theology without the doctrine of inerrancy. Otherwise, why would Jews memorize the Torah? How would rabbis and theologians ever create any kind of systematic theology without being able to appeal to some kind of authority?
Um, are you Catholic or Jewish?
Just checking ;} It was a nicer title than some other options available to me.
Actually, the work cited in my post has the correct interpretation of both faith's modern position on the bible. In addition, Gould was a practicing Jew, and I'm Catholic, and I suppose we can also both anecdotally attest to this as well.
Jews memorize the Torah not because they apply every aspect of it literally, but because they apply it's wisdom
to modern situations and use that knowledge to help determine proper action.
This misconception about widespread literal belief in the bible is a commonly held one, mostly due to the noise the fundamentalists make in the public sphere. But it's incorrect when applied to Catholicism.
There have been recent documents on evolution and science published by the Vatican. I can dig up links if you'd like them.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
modern times
It may be that in 'modern' times there are large numbers of Jews and Catholics who do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, but I think it is factually incorrect to say that neither religion has a 'tradition' of holding that doctrine.
The Jews of Jesus' day and previous believed the bible was the word of God, as did Jesus (which is abundantly clear from his statements in the NT). And it was a core doctrine of the Christian/Catholic church for ~1700 years.
though this part is too much
Most people are irrational period. Creationists and non-creationists. In fact most of those who "believe" in evolution do not know the first thing about it. So just because you hedge your bets in an irrational manner (most people, without really knowing all the objective facts) does not mean you should be disregarded or dismissed. It mostly means that many people simply are too lazy to know objective facts on every topic they have an opinion on.
So most opinions are held irrationally. But some opinions by those same people are held with full evaluation of the objective facts.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Criticism noted
You'll get no argument from me there.
I did take a bit of a liberty, I'll admit. I have irrational beliefs, I'm sure. The thing is that I'm aware of them, and working on it. I don't pretend to know where many ignorant people are sure.
I think that most people who believe in evolution that do not really know how it works still know it's the accepted scientific theory on the origin of species. One doesn't need to know the exact method of how their beliefs work. I could talk to people all day about calculus, differential equations, ring theory, and other advanced mathematical topics. They might not understand what I'm talking about but they can still know that what I'm saying is grounded in science and logic.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
that's the key-
whether you regard your personal irrational beliefs as a personal failing, or a right.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A few clarifications on my past discussions on this topic ...
(1) It is not my intent to promote Creationism or religious beliefs. To each his own on that front.
(2) It IS my intent to denounce the wholesale ridicule of people who hold religious beliefs.
(3) My previous discussions were focused on the narrow topic of Creationism and the logical implications for Science in a reality that incorporates the concept of an omnipotent meta-physical being.
(4) My previous discussions only addressed the subject of the creation of the universe. None of my discussion required or implied the need for an on-going active participation (a.k.a. performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics) on the part of the hypothetical omnipotent meta-physical being. Nor does that discussion contradict such participation.
(5) The fact that I choose to explore the logical implications of including the concept of an omnipotent meta-physical being into reality should not be construed to imply that I think that we as a society should act in accordance with anything but the scientific version. My point is that because we cannot distinguish the two cases (scientific vs. creationist) it doesn't matter. They are, in effect, the same thing which is basically the poiint you are trying to make above. We might as well act like the science is right.
---------------------------------------------------
In a continuing effort to refine my description of what I have said previously let me take yet another stab as saying what I consider to be the same thing here but much more rigorously:
Let S[0] represent the complete state of the universe at the instant of the Big Bang.
Let S[n] represent the complete state of the universe at time T=n, where n >= 0.
Let PhysicalLaws(x) represent a function representing the physical laws of the universe which maps from S[n] -> S[n] such that
Given these definitions it should be obvious that the evolution of the
state of the universe forward through time from T=n to time T=m is thus precisely predicted by the repeated application of
Given these definitions it should be obvious that there will also exist a function InversePhysicalLaws(x) representing the inverse of the physical laws of the universe which maps from S[n] -> S[n] such that
Given these definitions it should be obvious that the evolution of the state of the universe backward through time from T=m to time T=n is thus precisely predicted by the repeated application of
Scientific Reality:
In this case we assume a reality which rejects (or ignores) the existence of an omnipotent metaphysical being and we have the following definitions:
Under these assumptions the current state of the universe at any instant is computed by (2) where n=0 and m=current.
Any attempt to use phsyical evidence to compute the age of something corresponds to using some observable phenoma associated with PhysicalLaws(x).
Let PredictedEffect(S[m],duration) represent a function which maps from S[n] -> S[n] for all n >= 0 that relies on an observable phenomon associated with PhysicalLaws(x) such that:
The dating process therefore consists of searching for m=current, n=previous such that (6) is uniquely satisfied. This is esentially accomplished using (5) above and begining with n=current-1 and working backwards.
In the case of carbon dating, for example, PredictedEffect() is essentially the decay rate for Carbon-14. Obviously other suitable effects exist as well.
In normal English this corresponds roughly to looking backwards in time to find a time where the state of the universe (or more specifically some object in the universe) at that time is consistent with a known physical phenonon (i.e. the decay rate of Carbon-14) and the currently observed state of the universe (i.e. the object in question) at present.
Creationist Reality:
In this case we acknowledge the existence of
an omnipotent metaphysical being and we have the following definitions:
In this model everything can work exactly as described above for the Scientific Reality except that the time T=creation and the nature of PhysicalLaws() are both determined by some hypothetical omnipotent meta-physical being.
My whole point in all of the previous discussions boils down to the observation that an omnipotent meta-physical being is free to create the universe in any initial state that they might choose and that they can setup the physical laws of the universe to operate however they want.
So, if this being decides to set the initial state to a state that corresponds to time T=creation=0 in the Scientific Reality described above and set the PhysicalLaws() to exactly what they are in the Scientific Reality case above then we would have a situation where Creationist Reality = Scientific Reality from the perspective of scientific experiments that we might perform.
However, being an omnipotent being they might choose to create the universe in a state which corresponds to T=creation=n in the Scientific Reality described above and still set the PhysicalLaws() to exactly the same as in the Scientific Reality above. In this case any time T=m where m < creation represents a false historical state even though it will be predicted scientifically based on the PhysicalLaws() and InversePhysicalLaws() established at creation.
My entire point is that scientifically we can't distinguish between these two cases (Scientific vs. Creationist) even if we don't assume a lot of meta-physical mumbo jumbo. We don't need to observe "miracles" for the Creationist version to be true, nor does the lack of observing any "miracles" refute it.
Now we can quibble about whether a predictable function like PhysicalLaws() can properly account for things like the apparent random behavior in Quantuum Mechanics or not, but the fact is that the state of science today cannot answer that question. Whether the behavior we observe is truly random or is merely being perceived to be random has yet to be decided, at least IMHO. I argue the latter. For those who might argue the former, that would imply that the universe is inherently random and thus unpredictable anyway.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
FYI
Regarding (1) - (5), I did not mean to insinuate anything to that effect. I was just giving the rest of SC a bit of background.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's perfectly OK.
I didn't mean to sound defensive. I just want to clear up any misconceptions from the past threads.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You simply could of said the Omphalos Hypothesis
or a variation thereof allows one not to concede to observational reality. Since the Omphalos Hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it can't be disproved.
The Omphalos Hypothesis is on the same level as solipsism. You can't really disprove solipsism either.
So I put Young Earth creationists who resort to Omphalos type arguments on the same level as solipsists.
As far as Quantum Mechanics, while "observables" are random variables, you can predict the distributions of outcomes and the most likely outcome. To say Quantum systems are unpredictable is nonsense. The entire digitial technological revolution is built on the quantum behavior of semi-conducting materials.
Hey, thanks for the pointer.
I originally made this argument (but not nearly as rigorously formulated) before pico made me aware of Gosse' work. I felt like trying to formalize the notion a bit and I admit that after becoming familiar with Gosse' this clarified things for me a bit in my thinking, mostly in the area of thinking about things in terms of a false history. I was actually thinking the same thing but I hadn't put it into those terms until becoming aware of Gosse.
I agree with your statement here but this only makes things predictable in a statistical sort of way. You can't predict the outcome of individual events (which would be required to define S[n+1] for S[n] in my notation above). All you have is a probability distribution which is only useful for a large number of observations.
I personally don't buy into the whole randomness of Quantum Mechanics. I think that there are predictable (even for individual events) laws governing the operation of the universe even at that level. The problem is that we cannot characterize the current state sufficiently to understand the underlying laws. So the best we can accomplish is a statistical description using probability distributions.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
But which interpretation?
Quantum mechanics is one of my interests. I wonder to which interpretation you subscribe.
Personally, I believe Hidden Variables to be the most intuitive and likely, which is what you would seem to believe. Many Worlds is by far the most "interesting" but if true throws much of what we take for granted into doubt. For instance, MWI implies no free will.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
How so?
Seems the opposite to me. Deterministic interpretations like Hidden Variables are the ones that imply no free will - the current state of the universe determines the one possible future state. Many Worlds allows for continuous branching, and therefore constant choices, does it not?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Perhaps I have MWI wrong
I think it doesn't because, as I understand MWI, all possible events must happen. For instance, it is possible that I could murder my siblings. Therefore in one universe it must have happened or will happen. The fact that I'm sitting here and know I don't want to do such a thing is irrelevant.
Someone (I believe it was Einstein) said something to the effect of:
On a philosophical level, I do not fault the murderer or the thief, but I still prefer not to have tea with him.
That is how I understand MWI.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Many Worlds
I see it more like this: I get to make the choice I want. Just because some other I makes a different choice, doesn't make my choice any less of a choice. I can see how you could view it differently, and I think either interpretation is valid. I don't see any way that a completely deterministic theory could ever allow for free will, however. And I personally refuse to believe that there is no free will. Of course, it is possible that I may have no choice in that decision!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well does multiverse actually account for free?
Even in a multiverse view of reality, is their any instance of "you" who actually has free will? At a macro level (i.e. atomic and above) don't all the laws of physics (which lead to determinism) still end up applying in each of the universes?
And as discussed elsewhere (the Philosophy threads?) if everything at
the macro level is deterministic how can one claim to ever have free
will (which would imply that the force of your will can fundamentally affect the
course of the chemical reactions in our brain)?
No offense intended, but I don't think that it is the operation of your personal intellect and the choices that you personally make which determines when a new multiverse is "created"! :)
Even in a multiverse interpretation "free will" remains an illusion does it not?
If the true nature of reality can be correctly modeled mathematically, does this not also imply determinism? When we hypothesize a mathematical model to describe reality are we not implicitly also saying that the operation of reality is fundamentally deterministic? I suppose if one adds in probability functions at various points as in Quantuum Mechanics then you can, in effect, make a case that reality is not completely deterministic in the sense that you can correctly predict the outcome of any single event. But even this does not amount to free will, only random behavior.
Let us consider an example.
For the sake of discussion let us consider a case where a person's free will is inherently tied to some physical phenomenon where by the mathematical decription of the phenomenon relies on a specific probability distribution (i.e. some Quantuum level particle). This could, of course, allow for a specific individual to exhibit a variety of behaviors which, to an outside observer, would appear as though the individual was "making choices" (i.e. exhibiting free will).
The distribution of such choices, however, should be constrained by the probability distribution discussed above. But in a situation in which free will actually exists, no such contraints should exist, correct? Despite the observed probability function's distribution, in a case where free will actually exists an individual should be able to use the force of their will to contrain their observed bahaviors such that they violate the probability function in question. In other words, the behavior of (some) Quantuum level particles would now be subject to the action of our free will. Somehow this would seem to violate the spirit of the scientific description, would it not?
Science, it seems, has no place for free will for essentially the same reasons that it has no place for God. They both require the action of the universe to be subject to an outside influence.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Free Will
First, a general note on free will. I choose to believe it exists. Either I am right, and have made the correct choice, or I am not, but had no choice in the matter!
Second, a full response to this will take quite a bit more time than I have right now, so it will have to wait. This is definitely a topic of interest to me, though, so I will try to get to it, perhaps this evening.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Make a diary, guys!
Definitely an interesting topic, and perhaps a natural offshoot of the creationism discussion but nevertheless deserving of its own space, I think.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yes, make a diary when you have time please.
And stick a reference to it in the standing Philosphy thread.
I obviously would like to believe that we have free will, but the very notion of free will seems to run counter to the very concept of predictable behavior based on scientific observations of matter.
The only hope is for it to somehow be an emergent property somehow, but I have never been able to decouple the concept of a "free will" that somehow operates independently of physical laws within the context of a physical universe governed by the immutable laws upon which it is based.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I am definitely not an MWI proponent.
The whole parallel universes with simultaneous branching seem intuitively bogus to me. It might be a cute idea that fits with our statistical observations but I don't think that reality operates that way.
While I confess to not having read up on the details, but I suspect that I am more of a hidden variables guy. I believe that there is only one universe with one state at any given instance and that the evolution of that state through time can be uniquely described in a manner similar to what I have expressed above.
The description provided above is something that I put together in an afternoon. I have no doubt that there are subtleties that can be nit picked but I think that this is sufficient to convey my perspective in a relatively rigorous manner, at least for those with enough math background to follow it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Didn't take you for an eastern mysticism kind of guy...
That's what you would have to resort to if you want to keep your single universe because you have to give up the concept of locality. David Bohm took his theory seriously and later in life became preoccupied with eastern mysticism and parapsycholoy.
MWI is actually the most scientifically rational view of existence and--along with the anthropic principle-- provides the philosophical framework for a libertarian world view.
Well, as I said above, I admit not to having read a lot on
exactly what hidden variables says or means, so don't impart too much of the baggage it may or may not carry into my views.
On the other hand, I know that I definitely don't believe in multiverse ... at least in terms of how reality actually operates. I have no problem with it as a descriptive theory to explain some of the paradoxes and shortcomings of the existing mathematical models.
In what way does a single universe violate locality, in your opinion? I have no actual thinking on this topic to offer at this point and would be interested in hearing your views on the topic.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
A single universe with a hidden variables interpretation
of quantum mechanics necessarily mandates non locality. It is been established mathematically and experimentally by verification of violations of the famous bell inequality.
In terms of the "realness" of the multiverse, like I've posted earlier, quantum computation likely establishes just how the real the mulitverse is.
MWI Interpretation
MWI does not imply "no free will," it only implies there is no "definiteness" of a result of an outcome or a measurement. However, MWI does preserve locality and realism in physics, which the other interpretations cannot retain(both).
What convinced me of MWI is the viability of quantum computation, which I don't think can be explained particularly convincingly outside the concept of the Multiverse. In addition, string theory now has evolved into the more general M-Theory, which relies on the concept of the multiverse.
And David Deutsch last month published a groundbreaking paper that explains scientifically the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes in the context of a branching mulitverse.
David Bohm, the pioneer of non-local hidden variables, devolved, in my view, into a preoccupation with eastern mysticism as the result of the non-locality implications of his theory.
David Deutsch , I should say, is a libertarian philosophically.
OK, OK. I get it.
In your scientific opinion multiverse is what you believe. That's fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to treat it like it is actual fact. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I believe David Deutsch has just published a paper
demonstrating that the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes can be explained by the "branching" of the universe into parallel versions of itself, which is being hailed in the scientific community as a great breakthrough.
The viability of quantum computing also demonstrates that the Multiverse is real.
Hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics necessarily implies non-locality which does not engender itself favorably with relativity(lorentz invariance). There hasn't been much progress at all in these non-local hidden variable interpretations of QM.
God requires belief in Evil...
Evil is not a descriptor of an object, it is an externalization of an emotion, that of hate, fear and contempt.
If we believe in a good God, we must posit the concept of Evil to explain all of the pain in the world. And it is abundant.
With this word legitimized we can then have an "Axis of Evil" and do whatever you wish to the men, women and children under this category.
Epistemological theological discussions over Creationism inherently becomes vacuous. It reduces to casuistry.
But we can ask what are the social results of believing in God. Is it necessary as a balm to what ails us as humans, or does it add to our misery.
As an Atheist, I am not sure of the above answer.
Really?
God requires belief in evil.
I didn't know that. I didn't get the memo from him, I guess.
The best scientific explanation for the universe
is m-theory, inflation, and the anthropic principle. The Antrhopic principle differs from the copernican principle in that it does place us in a privledged spacetime position. The universe is as big as it is and as old as it is because it has to be in order for us to exist
god and all that
so I get the feeling that Ender does not believe in God .... OMG ... guess what , neither do I .... we have somthing in common ???? surely not .
After a long and bitter stuggle with my Catholic roots , which included patriotic roots in my case and of course family , I have to conclude that this is it folks ,, this is all we have , this one life , this lovely and flawed thing that is our everyday existance , and you know what , I am ok with that now ,, it took a few years to get here , but I am happy to wake each day to a finite life, with no afterlife , in some ways its liberating .... for example ... why should I worry what people like Ender think of me ..... its a short life , why not just speak the truth out loud .... and be dammed , at least it may move us forward a few yards , When I look at the Republican field all I can see is the PAST .... taking us back a hundred years or so ....... ok all don e
sligowoman
you're wrong
Your whole characterization of creationists as people who reject the notion that we must base our choices and decisions on objective reality is incorrect.
The real issue is the presuppositional framework creationists and evolutionists use to interpret the data. Creationists and evolutionists can make the exact same observation and make two different conclusions.
A perfect example of this was the recent find of dinosaur blood in a t-rex bone. First, this is an OBSERVATION that is PREDICTED by creation science and not by evolution. If you remember reading the articles about this (I think it was all over the news last summer) all the evolutionists were SHOCKED to find this because soft tissue shouldn't be able to survive that long. But their presuppositions were that the fossil was millions of years old. They never questioned whether that assumption was wrong and maybe the fossil was only a couple thousand years old, rather they tried to interpret this observation within their existing framework.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it
Here is a differing analysis
my point
My point is not to argue the actual details of the observation (the particular observation in question is different than the one your link is discussing), but rather to demonstrate the different ways people interpret the data.
Another example would be the interpretation of the fossil record, or ice cores, or geologic strata. In all cases you are dealing with observations in the present dealing with non-repeatable events that were not witnessed. Therefore the proper interpretation of the data relies heavily on existing assumptions and frameworks about the time in question.
I would assert that the exact same observations can be made to fit decently well in multiple theoretical frameworks. The question then is which model fits the data best.
A subpoint is that Creationism does result in a testable scientific model that makes thousands of predictions, just as evolutionism does. And each theory is so complicated with so many working parts that each cannot be proved right or wrong with a couple observations. Rather the sum total of observations need to be compared against each theory considering the presuppositions of that theory to determine which is more likely correct.
Creationism vs Young Earth
How do you test to see if the universe and all life forms sprang into existance spontaneously (or over 6 days)?
That is very distinct from testing to evaluate how old the earth is.
No, the questions isn't which model fits the data best. The question is which model fits current data and is best able to predict future data. Coming up with a theory based entirely on current data is bad science unless you are able to test the theory against data that was not used to make the theory.
The theory behind radioactive half-life dating has been evaluated and tested many, many times.
ok
I agree that it is difficult to test whether all life forms sprang into existence over 6 days, but that assertion is not the limit of YEC. Unless there is another theory that advocates a young earth, then testing the age of the earth is a test for YEC. Other testable assertions include the global flood, dinosaur living with man, etc.
I of course agree that predicting future data is also important in choosing a correct model.
As for radioactive dating, you just cannot verify its accuracy because there is no way of knowing whether rock X actually is 5 million years old. Radioactive dating is based on unprovable assumptions, and even if it is accurate for dating recent things that does not mean it is accurate in dating older things.
If you haven't already, you may be interested to read the RATE report
which states several observations that are inconsistent with radioactive decay rates AND predicted by the YEC model, including C14 in diamonds and other fossilized material and high amounts of helium in supposedly very old rocks.
Theory explains observation, it isn't defined by it
That is completely backwards. The fact that there aren't any other such theories doesn't mean that data supporting requirements of the theory support the theory itself. A large area flood would support an oral tradition that had recorded the flood; I fail to see how it would support a divine origin for the flood or for life itself.
There isn't any other theory supporting young earth because we have enormous evidence of an old universe. Parrallax measurements showing distances of astronomical events, measurable speed of light showing a continguous universe. Uranium-235 and Potassium-40 dating give age of the physical earth.
There is zero evidence of a young universe. Young Earth Creationists WANT it to be the case and so they go about trying to attack all evidence to the contrary.
The interesting thing is that C14 contamination can make things appear younger than otherwise, but I haven't seen any explanation that would allow Carbon-14 dating to give a falsely old age.
The whole drive is so odd to me. The universe, origins of life etc are stupendously more impressive if the scientifically backed theories are correct. Creations' grandeur in a 15 billion year expansion, where life on Earth is only possible due to solar birth, interplanetary collisions providing a moon that remove enough of the atmospher to allow life; it is so much more amazing than anything I've ever seen in any of the more popular religions. You want to give a divine force credit, that's fine, but frankly, were I to do so, I'd want to give such a divinity full credit.
well
Are you saying that evidence for a global flood would not be evidence for the YEC model of history even though that is one of their primary assertions, and it is something evolutionists would never touch?
Actually, many YEC scientists would probably argue that the universe is billions of years old and the earth is thousands of years old based on a bounded universe cosmological model where gravity variations distort time (which is consistent with the Pioneer anomaly that has confused most secular astronomers).
The RATE research included checks for contamination. Diamonds are so hard I don't think they can be contaminated anyway, so if the diamond is sitting in precambrian rock and has C14 it would indicate the diamond cannot be a million years old.
I could cite 50-100 geologic processes that are evidence for young earth. As one example, consider the erosion of the continents. At slower rates of erosion the continents should have been completely eroded in the millions of years since they were last under the ocean (according to secularists). If that is true why is the whole earth covered with sedimentary rock? And why do they find ancient marine animals buried is sedimentary rock on top of the Himalayas? That rock should have been eroded a long time ago and replaced by other types of rock. Last I checked, the talkorigins rebuttals failed to deal with the last half of the argument.
Evolutionists need to abandon this silly notion that there is 0 evidence for a young earth before
Science Predictions instead of Cherry Picking
I'm saying that a global flood would be no more evidence of a Young Earth Creationism than cosmic background radiation is evidence of Old Earth Creationism because I fail to see how a global flood correlates with how the earth was created.
The problem seems to be a different perception what science is. Looking for measurements that fit your theory isn't science, it is cherry picking. For example, if I wanted to prove that all Creationists use deception to push their case, I could cite that so-called blood in dinosaur study debunking I pointed to earlier. The creationist was being extremely deceptive and misquoting. But expanding that into a 'scientific theory' would be inappropriate.
Show me predictions that the theory makes before the measurements are taken and I'll be interested, but what you have pointed to so far is a collection of measurements chosen and interpreted by people with a prestated agenda to support their agenda. Biologists have used their theories of evolution to treat diseases, create new food supplies. Geologists have used their theory of tectonic plate activities to predict earthquakes and find mineral resources. Radiation experts have used their theories to develop nuclear technology. Entire fields have developed from their theories and the implications of their theories have spun off entirely new fields of science... which impact the world around them.
Please, tell me what non-philisophical/humanity fields and inventions have spun off from creationism?
I really don't get your point on C14. I don't know enough to know how susceptible the N14 remaining behind (and unable to escape the carbon lattice that is a diamond) would remain to re-irradiation from local underground sources and reconversion. Could you please link to your study? I'm curious as to how carefully they measured the radiation near the areas where the diamonds were excavated and stored.
It seems like you are trying to have it both ways here. If you take diamonds with C14 (in a controlled, no significant radioactive sources in the area) as evidence of a 'young diamond' then wouldn't all those diamonds with insignificant C14 be proof that they were 'old diamonds'? If you have a 100 million year old diamond and a 40,000 year old diamond, you still have a 100 million year old+ earth. Plus the same physics of C14 dating (which creationists use to date religious objects all the time) also supports Uranium and high-half life dating, which shows an earth billions of years old.
How about this one!
Theory:
The universe was created 5 minutes ago by a Flying Linguini Monster who intentionally set the initial state of the universe in all possible respects to match the observed state of the universe at that time, and further that he established a set of physical laws to govern the evolution of that universe which match the physical laws governing our universe in every possible respect.
As a result of setting this initial state for the universe there is a planet called Earth contained within this universe which is inhabited by people who call themselves scientists and who only accept observable phenomena from the physical universe as being "real". These people completely reject the notion of a Flying Linguini Monster or anything that they cannot observe themselves directly.
Prediction:
These same scientists will continue to believe that the physical laws and observed physical phenomena will suggest an age for the universe which is much older than it's true age of 5 minutes (only the Flying Linguini Monster will know why he chose such an initial state), and that these scientists will continue to make new discoveries and new predictions by utilizing the knowledge inherently created within them as well as the new knowledge that they will discover and develop as the universe evolves. This theory further predicts that these scientists will have no free will of any sort and that they will be mere automatons whose actions are completely controlled and predicted by the physical laws of the universe as defined by the Flying Lingini Monster.
Criteria for Disproving this theory:
To disprove this theory it must be demonstrated that a supreme being such as the Flying Linguini Monster could not have created our universe.
This seems clearly defined, contains a testable prediction (do scientists continue to act as predicted), and is disprovable (simply demonstrate that a supreme being could not have created our universe).
Thoughts? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Different details, same story.
But as we have discussed, this is no particular surprise. There can be no scientific evidence of metaphysical phenomena by definition, so stating that there is no evidence of metaphysical phenomena doesn't actually prove anything. It only confirms that the chosen framework is being self-consistent. Self-consistency does not equate to correct.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's why they call it Theology
Instead of science.
Self-consistency is a fine thing. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also completely self-consistent.
Hmm ...
an interesting position for you to take. In what way does this not describe the Theory of Evolution, its origins, or our ability to test it?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Science is Iterative
The strength of a theory is related to its predictive ability. Darwin made a
lot of very accurate predictions based upon his theory and scientists have continued to do so. So the theory is strong, but imperfect based on its inaccuracies. When a theory needs refinement and someone takes observed data to create that refinement, the theory can only be judged as improved based on new predictions and NOT based on how well the refinements take the already existing data into account.
More in chat if you care to