Hypothesis testing isn’t begging the question.
All you’re doing is showing you don’t understand philosophy of science 101.
Ok, well you can think what you want about that. I’ll continue to look into this ‘bayesian argument’ you’re talking about and see what more I can find out about it.
”Though a mathematical triviality, the Theorem’s [Bayes’ Theorem] central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.”
1 Like
True. Your problem is that “God did it” isn’t a predictive realm, since it predicts nothing. If God can do anything, then we can have no expectations of what his creation ought to look like. A proper diagram would have blue (common descent) as a small circle and red (creation) filling all the space of the figure. Thus all blue would be purple. If creation has no expectations, that’s not a predictive realm and it’s impossible to do science with it.
Still, one might ask, if God could have done anything, why did he restrict his creation to that tiny little blue circle?
It’s worse than that. Not only does the nested hierarchy point to common descent and not separate creation, there’s other evidence from faunal succession, biogrographic patterns, developmental biology, and so on, all pointing either to common descent or an inexplicable series of whims on the part of the creator. Or perhaps they aren’t inexplicable: perhaps the creator is trying to deceive us. How about that hypothesis?
1 Like
How does it differentiate at all between the two if creation is consistent with the idea that a nested hierarchy could be created?
It’s a probabilistic argument. If anything at all would be consistent with creation, and very little would be consistent with common descent, yet we observe that particular very little, it would be an odd coincidence if creation just happened to settle on the same pattern. Consider this: if you flip a coin 100 times and get heads every time, is that consistent with a fair coin that landed on heads by chance? Of course it is. Any pattern of flips is equally likely for a fair coin, including 100 heads. But you would probably conclude that the coin wasn’t fair, right?
I think I see what you’re trying to argue here. But odd coincidences can certainly happen. Especially when there are lots of unknowns. There could be some reason why God would choose to create after that fashion and we simply don’t know about it.
I think this probabilistic argument from nested hierarchies is very weak, personally. If we have independent reasons to favor creation over evolution, this kind of argument would not sway anything.
Exactly, here’s a visual aid.
This is how the "predictive realms should be arranged in this case:
And here’s how it looks with the data plotted (yellow stars):
All the data is in the overlapping realm, so according to you, it supports neither evolution or creationism. Does that seem correct to you, intuitively, looking at the diagram?
2 Likes
Then let’s discuss your alleged critical thinking about the only evidence I’ve seen presented in any of your writings:
What data are graphed here? Specifically and in your own words, please.
I think that you are ignoring the modifier “nested,” personally and professionally.
Thanks, that’s helpful. I do understand the argument you’re making, but now I think to move further I would have to dispute your premise that all the stars really do belong in that tight little evolution circle!
I think that even if I did grant that premise though, the argument would still be weak, because it’s force would depend on existing in a vacuum where there were no outside considerations beyond just this one piece of evidence (nested hierarchies). But when considering worldviews, we have to look at the overall picture, not just one factor like that.
1 Like
Naturally, that’s why we have threads where you can present what you believe is positive evidence for creationism over evolution.
Of course we’re looking at the big picture, but that entails examining individual pieces of data in turn. It’s quite undeniable that the observation of nested hierarchies is positive evidence for evolution over creationism, but the magnitude will always be hard to quantify. In this case, I think it’s an incredibly powerful piece of evidence even in isolation, but the fact that it gels with other data is the cherry on top.
3 Likes
Is the evidence in the graph that YOU presented inside or outside that circle?
Oh, you must mean things like the geologic evidence you can’t explain, and the fossil evidence you can’t explain, and the genetic evidence you can’t explain, and the radiometric evidence you can’t explain.
What about all the factors you ignore like the plague?
2 Likes
False dichotomy.
The phrase “critical thinking” has become a Young Earth Creationist trope. For example, it has become the alleged goal of “reforming” the teaching of biology in the public schools—by emphasizing “critical thinking” instead of the actual scientific theories which have come out of peer-review.
How many public school courses are focused on “critical thinking”? Teachers already have their hands full. Does the teacher need to teach algebra but then tell the students, “Of course, this is just how I see it. I’m leaving the final decision in your hands because I want you to learn and to exercise critical thinking skills.” When the science teacher explains Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, should he/she encourage students to consider it as just an opinion—and encourage them to apply their critical thinking skills?
Are the various origin’s ministry entrepreneurs (e.g., Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, the Morris dynasty) known for their outstanding “critical thinking skills” or is this just code for “I will believe what I choose to believe.” (And I’m fine with people believing as they wish. Just don’t call it the exercising of critical thinking skills when it involves ignoring evidence.)
Me too.
Case in point: the global flood.
Case in point: the firmament.
I could list many others.
1 Like
That’s an excellent argument. In fact it’s so good that if we accept it, you have just proven that there can be no knowledge whatsoever, about anything. Let me demonstrate with a couple of examples.
-
Let’s suppose you have a dog. But it’s possible that you only think you have a dog, and that in reality God, for unknowable but important and justified reasons, has transformed a goldfish into the semblance of a dog. You can’t show that isn’t true, and it’s certainly within his capabilities. So you can’t actually know that you have a dog.
-
You think Genesis 1 is true. But it’s possible that in reality God, for unknowable but important and justified reasons, has caused a story that, considered literally, is false to be placed in Genesis. You can’t show that isn’t true, and it’s certainly within his capabilities. So you can’t actually know that Genesis 1 is true.
Congratulations: nobody can possibly know anything. Is that what you’re going for?
Ah, but we can’t have any reasons to favor anything over anything, as you have just proven. We know nothing and can never know anything.
That’s a completely different argument from the one you made before. Would you agree? Now we’re actually forced to consider the data. You have also expanded the scope from nested hierarchy to, apparently, all data in the universe. That’s known as “moving the goalposts”.
4 Likes
Please recall what you wrote here next time you consider asking an old earth creationist for an explicit Scripture reference that proves early Genesis should not be taken strictly literally - or if you see another young earth creationist asking that question.
8 Likes
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
A day to God can be a thousand years? Where does it mention 24 hours again?
Which Greek word are you translating as something like “deny” when claiming that the scoffers will deny the creation and flood as historical events?
2 Likes