Any young earth creationists out there?

[buffalo]

Isn’t that within the competence of science, though – to evaluate claims of empirical evidence on their own merits and decide which are reasonable and which are not?

Yes, as long as there is no a priori bias. We just know evolution happened and …

“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

Science must divest itself from this way of thinking.

 

[buffalo]

On the other hand, if proponents of ID reject empirical data that demonstrates a billions-of-years-old earth based foundationally on their theological principles, then that’s precisely what scientists aren’t supposed to do!

Uhhhh, there is not empirical backing, that is observable, repeatable and predictable. ID is not addressing YEC. It only addresses the signatures left by intelligent agents. You are getting the two confused.

And recently we learned carbon dating ages are different in different parts of the world.

 

[buffalo]

dealing in mutually exclusive domains.

NO, there are places they intersect and both have to be true. The non-overlapping magisteria is nonsense.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not dangerous, that’s the whole goal, to try and put ID on the same level as evolution without having to do all that pesky ‘work’ to actually find and present evidence.

Interesting how it is difficult to get funding for ID research. Many scientists don’t even ask, for they know the answer. In addition, they may lose their jobs.

Would you agree that government should fund ID research?

 

[Gorgias]

“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

Science must divest itself from this way of thinking.

Well… hold on, though! That was stated by a Christian who is also a scientist, in his essay asserting that theistic evolution is the way to go:

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973)

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts… the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973)

So, if you’re attempting to claim that his assertion is the rallying cry of all scientists, I would reject that claim.

Uhhhh, there is not empirical backing, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

We already disposed of the “observable, repeatable, and predictable” claim, didn’t we?

ID is not addressing YEC. It only addresses the signatures left by intelligent agents. You are getting the two confused.

Fair enough. It was brought up in the context of this thread (YEC), though, right? Are we saying that ID proponents don’t hold to YEC, and therefore, YEC proponents shouldn’t be pointing to them for support of their claims?

NO, there are places they intersect and both have to be true. The non-overlapping magisteria is nonsense.

OK. Give me an example, then? (Mind you, I’m not asking for an example of archeology that shows the existence of something that the Church would claim is historically true (e.g., the crucifixion of Jesus), but of something for which the Church doesn’t necessarily make that claim.)

Interestingly enough, if science is unable to confirm the historicity of a Scriptural account, this does not harm the assertions of Scripture, in the assertions it is attempting to make. So, even that claim would fail, if you chose to go down that path…

 

[buffalo]

Just for fun, suppose tomorrow a large number of scientists concluded life does require a designer. What do you think they’d conclude about that designer based on the evidence? Do you think they’d conclude the design took place in 6 days? What evidence would suggest that?

It is irrelevant to ID, the science. It belongs in historical science.

Is “six days” the reason you will not give ID the time of day?

 

[buffalo]

To the degree that physical evidence supports ID it would seem to support a very fallible trial-and-error designer or designers who take a very long time to learn from their mistakes, their end product being quite prone to breakdowns and needing frequent maintenance.

I do not have that issue since Adam and Eve were the prototypes.

Six day aside, the designer could design different kinds and add them to the timeline anywhere He wished.

 

[buffalo]

Well… hold on, though! That was stated by a Christian who is also a scientist, in his essay asserting that theistic evolution is the way to go:

Yup. So? Many Christians have swallowed theistic evolution.

 

[buffalo]

We already disposed of the “observable, repeatable, and predictable” claim, didn’t we?

No. …

 

[buffalo]

Fair enough. It was brought up in the context of this thread (YEC), though, right? Are we saying that ID proponents don’t hold to YEC, and therefore, YEC proponents shouldn’t be pointing to them for support of their claims?

ID proponents can hold either position and not be in conflict with ID, the science.

 

[buffalo]

In the beginning, (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (time).

Catholics, Christians and Jews believed this from the start, since they were told by Revelation. Science just recently confirmed it. This is one area of intersect.

 

[buffalo]

Interestingly enough, if science is unable to confirm the historicity of a Scriptural account, this does not harm the assertions of Scripture, in the assertions it is attempting to make. So, even that claim would fail, if you chose to go down that path…

Empirical science cannot confirm a one time historical event. Historical science is where the work is done.

 

[Gorgias]

No. …

Sure we did. It was in your confusion between “inductive” and “deductive” reasoning, upthread around post 2000 or so.

In the beginning, (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (time).

Catholics, Christians and Jews believed this from the start, since they were told by Revelation. Science just recently confirmed it.

As a non-Christian physicist if science confirmed that God created the universe. I think you’ll find your claim is mistaken.

Empirical science cannot confirm a one time historical event. Historical science is where the work is done.

And how do you distinguish between the tools of these two ‘types’ of science?

 

[buffalo]

Sure we did. It was in your confusion between “inductive” and “deductive” reasoning, upthread around post 2000 or so.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I made the point that evolution is inductive and ID was deductive. Neither is empirical. However, is design detection be SETI empirical?

 

[buffalo]

And how do you distinguish between the tools of these two ‘types’ of science?

Historical science is forensic.

 

[Dan123]

It is irrelevant to ID, the science. It belongs in historical science.

I do not have that issue since Adam and Eve were the prototypes.

Six day aside, the designer could design different kinds and add them to the timeline anywhere He wished.

See you almost pretended ID was trying to be science but then you immediately stepped away from it. Adam and Eve were ‘the’ prototypes? Seems like there’s lot of prototypes before them. Are we the final form or just more iterations? How do we know?

How do you know the designer is capable of inserting things anywhere in the timeline? Did we settle on ‘singular’ designer, and one to which ‘He’ makes sense as a pronoun? How did we do that? Why is that more likely that a whole civilization of designers improving on their creation generation after generation?

How do we know the designers are still around? Maybe they finished with us and moved on, or maybe they died. How could we seek to answer that question?

 

[buffalo]

See you almost pretended ID was trying to be science but then you immediately stepped away from it. Adam and Eve were ‘the’ prototypes? Seems like there’s lot of prototypes before them. Are we the final form or just more iterations? How do we know?

Once again, you are confusing ID the science, with ID the philosophy.

Seems? But no empirical proof. That would be a philosophical statement.

We have been told.

If the designer designed and created time, of course He can insert what He wants where. He inserted HImself into the timeline.

We know of many designers. The ultimate designer is the one and only God.

Every human designer will die.

If you are thinking we may have been designed by aliens, the who designed the aliens? This just pushes the question back.

 

[Dan123]

Okay well you asked why more science funding wasn’t available for ID and I tried to ask questions someone following the scientific method might ask if they were investigating and you kept replying with philosophical ID responses. So I’m not convinced I’m the one conflating the two, and I’m skeptical there is a scientific component to ID at all.

We have been told.

Have you been told, or have you been told you were told? Or have you been told you were told you were told? I’m not just playing word games there. Someone told you that the Bible tells you that God tells you He’s the creator. Or do you have another source? Is this strictly philosophical or is that a source we can examine and test whether it’s true?

If the designer designed and created time, of course He can insert what He wants where. He inserted HImself into the timeline.

Haaaang on a dang second. Where in ID science would the creator of life on Earth also have to have created time? Oh right, we switched to philosophy.

If you are thinking we may have been designed by aliens, the who designed the aliens? This just pushes the question back.

Indeed, just like asking who designed God would push the question back. But then you’ll fall back on philosophical ID to say he doesn’t need a designer, so I’ll do the same for the aliens. The aliens always existed. Who knows perhaps they designed God. Handy to not have to demonstrate things.

 

[buffalo]

If you ask a philosophical question why be surprised at a philosophical answer?

 

[buffalo]

ndeed, just like asking who designed God would push the question back. But then you’ll fall back on philosophical ID to say he doesn’t need a designer, so I’ll do the same for the aliens. The aliens always existed. Who knows perhaps they designed God. Handy to not have to demonstrate things.

Aliens, as in plural, always existed?