Can Science Definitively Reject Special Creation?

Science doesn’t have to observe an event in real time to know the event happened. It’s enough to observe ant test evidence the event left behind. Do you accept plate tectonic theory? if so, why when you’ve never seen South America touching Africa?

We “assume” regular natural processes because they’re the only kind humans have ever empirically observed since the beginning of recorded history. Do you think gravity is “just an assumption” and we should allow for the possible existence of invisible gravity fairies pushing things to the ground?

1 Like

Again you miss my point.
Scienc does not have to observe an event in real time due to some basic assumptions.
If the assumptions are not valid, then the scientific claim is not valid.
I accept scientific claims based on likely hood.
So I don’t have much of a problem with plate tectonics.

Depends on how you define “empirically”. Humans report having observed/experienced many things… including miracles…

When will you show us your evidence the assumptions are invalid? If you can’t you have no basis for complaining at all.

But you don’t accept the identical assumptions about natural processes when it comes to evolution. Rather a hypocritical position to take, don’t you agree?

There has never been a validated supernatural occurrence in the history of human-kind. Not one, not ever. All we get are unverified anecdotal stories and second, third, fourth hand reports. “Gramdma told us she once saw a ghost!” is not scientific evidence.

1 Like

It strongly appears that Ashwin ignores questions about his evidence and methodology.

1 Like

Can you show evidence proving the assumption that only natural processes have influenced the natural history of earth ?
Or doesn’t such an assumption need evidence.

Well if plate tectonics led to rising sky scrapers by natural processes, k would question it too…

This is nonsense… grandma in you example would be
the first hand report.

Why would I need a methodology to claim that science cannot definitively reject special creation?

If you want science to deal with such ideas… then you are the one in need of a new methodology.

Do you want science to deal with such ideas? If so, it’s up to you to figure out how that would work. My claim is that we can deal with them by rejecting them as a poor fit to the data, but you don’t like that idea. And I do think your response counts as ignoring questions.

1 Like

My question is how do you conclude that if you cannot model what special creation would look like…

Your claim is not scientific. You can’t have it both ways.

I can’t have what both ways? I would model what special creation would look like by integrating over all possibilities, there being no reason to pick a particular one. Thus the chance of special creation fitting the particular pattern excepted from common descent is a priori very low. Since we have a good fit to common descent, we can provisionally reject special creation.

Now you go: tell me how you would support special creation in a scientific study.

1 Like

In which case you should not have a problem with ID.
Perhaps @pnelson would like to comment.

It’s your claim evolutionary theory is based on invalid assumptions. It’s your burden of proof to demonstrate they are invalid or you’re just blowing hot air.

Good grief. You really think “grandma claims she saw a ghost!” qualifies as scientific evidence? Do you have any science background at all?

1 Like

A rather standard ID-Creationist tactic I’m afraid. The concept of providing positive evidence for the ID-Creationist position is alien to them.

1 Like

This is nonsense. People who make an assumption have to validate it… not the other way around.

No I think it’s part of human observation. Scientists also would use it as evidence… but not for the supernatural…

That’s already been done to the satisfaction of 99.999% of the science professionals who study and work with the evidence and I’ve already explained why. You’re the oddball outlier, not them. Ball’s in your court.

Thanks for confirming you have no science background.

1 Like

If you think that 99.999% of scientists believe only natural processes exist in the world… You are mistaken.
Can you show some evidence… perhaps a survey?

Scientists would use it as evidence… but would give a natural explanation.

There you go dishonestly changing my words again. 99.999% of scientists assume only natural processes when doing science which includes support for evolutionary theory. Of course many scientists hold sincere religious “supernatural” beliefs but they don’t include those beliefs in their scientific research and results.

If you think that then it’s good you’re not a scientist.

1 Like

Then why object to saying special creation is something that science cannot address?

Do you consider psychiatrists as scientists?
Here is an interesting article for you.

And a quote about a case study-
A 2002 case report by German researchers described how a middle aged woman, grieving her daughter’s death from a heroin overdose, regularly saw the young girl and sometimes heard her say “Mamma, Mamma!” and “It’s so cold.”

Scientists do study ghost stories. They just arrive at a “natural” explanation. Usually classifying it as hallucinations.
Hence my statement that scientists study ghost stories and try to arrive at natural explanations.

@swamidass- This does raise questions about how theologically neutral science is and with respect to the bias it introduces. By the same logic, St Paul’s visions would be hallucinations.

I know a Christian called Parameswaran who lost his three children in the 2004 Tsunami. He and his wife were devastated and grief struck. They questioned God as to why this has happened to them. They saw a vision of their children which gave them confidence that they were well and with God. This encouraged him to rise up from his grief and he went on to start an orphanage taking care of children who had lost their parents. I don’t see any reason to believe what he experienced was a hallucination.
Why should the scientific view be more valid than Parameswaran’s own testimony?

Special Creation requires supernatural intervention. Science does not and cannot investigate the supernatural. There are only so many ways people can keep explaining that to you.

No, they don’t. Pop TV shows and con artists push ghost stories. Psychologists study why psychological trauma sometimes causes people to hallucinate supernatural events like ghosts. it doesn’t assume the ghosts are real supernatural entities.

1 Like

Do you even read what I write?
Thats what I have been saying all along. Only from the other side. That science cannot claim special creation did not actually happen in history.

Again, the same question. Do you read what I write. I will copy paste what I write once again with emphasis.

Respond to what I write. Not what you think I wrote.

Science can say there is zero positive evidence Special Creation happened and a huge amount of positive evidence it didn’t happen. Again that is good enough for 99.999% of scientists who study and work in the subject. Once more you’re the oddball outlier.

LOL! That’s rich coming from the guy who has dishonestly put words in my mouth at least three times.

2 Likes