Book is done and with the publishers. We included atheist scientist in workshopping the book. They sign off on the science.
Do any scientists agree you have made a solid case?
I have just arrived at this hypothesis today, so there has not been much time. However, already a few scientists have commented on it, yourself included, and have not been able to find any scientific evidence to refute it.
What would you accept as scientific evidence against this hypothesis? Give examples.
1 Like
I donât believe there are any. So far, no one has demonstrated otherwise.
Since you canât even imagine what would be evidence against your hypothesis, what is the point of asking people for scientific evidence against it? What is the point of asking people for evidence when your stock answer is that you will simply posit more ad hoc hypotheses with no larger justification whatsoever? The discussion ceases to be conducted in good faith.
1 Like
Because I could be wrong.
@swamidass also does not believe there is any evidence against GAE, yet heâs publishing a book about it.
1 Like
Clearly you will never admit to be wrong, since you have no idea what sort of scientific evidence can be against your theory.
In the book he engages with biological and genetic evidence which could be relevant to determining whether the scenario is plausible. He explores migration patterns across the globe which might result in some isolated populations not descended from A&E. He differentiates GAE from other scenarios which require ongoing miracles (like yours). He explores its compatibility with various theological viewpoints.
You have done none of this.
2 Likes
And yet my hypothesis is just as correct as his is. What about that?
1 Like
You might think itâs as correct as his, but you havenât demonstrated that, by any epistemological criteria! 
1 Like
You have admitted my idea cannot be falsified. @swamidass has admitted his idea cannot be demonstrated to be true.
Looks like a wash to me.
1 Like
Nobody has EVER disputed that science cannot falsify a bunch of ideas. Even more so if you can keep adding unlimited miracles to patch up any holes. You didnât even need to go to the trouble of making a thread about this. I have brought up Last Thursday-ism several times in this forum. Rather, it shows the limited power of science to adjudicate theological claims, as people donât claim that the GAE is true because of science. You understand that, right?
2 Likes
Exactly. So GAE is just another example of how religious ideas are often not falsifiable. So what?
I think itâll be interesting to see how the religious folk respond to Joshuaâs book. Iâm not sure it will be primarily what he wants. Members of the DI are already using GAE as a propaganda tool.
Not quite. There are a lot of religious ideas which turn out to be scientifically falsifiable, as in the case of YEC and ID. It takes skill and careful thought to think of a way to think of religious ideas which are coherent with religious epistemological criteria yet not falsified by science, as seen in this case where your hypothesis is neither.
Even in the case of GAE, parts of it (such as de novo creation), are not falsifiable. But many other parts are.
How do you know what Josh wants? I donât know what youâre talking about.
1 Like
How is ID (the intelligent design of biological life on Earth) scientifically falsifiable?
2 Likes
I think it ultimately is not, which is why I think it is not really a scientific argument. But some specific claims of ID proponents are falsifiable, as was seen in the Behe book review and many threads weâve had here.
1 Like
That I agree with. Thanks.
2 Likes
This is new information. Tell me more.
Thatâs because you have suddenly altered your argument so as to make the creation events undetectable. Youâre a moving target. What you have now described doesnât fail on contact with the world, but it fails in another way: now God is deceptive, counterfeiting what we expect to see from ordinary descent, and for no reason other than to fool us.
1 Like
Since your hypothesis includes âThe being responsible for their creation does not wish their existence to be known, so is very careful to ensure that no one is able to discern that these humans have been createdâ there never can be any scientific evidence against your hypothesis, since any potential evidence will be altered, erased or hidden by the being as it covers its tracks.
This leaves your hypothesis in the âLeprechauns use my house when Iâm asleepâ category.
1 Like
Yes. I modified my hypothesis to take account of evidence that has been presented against the original version, as a scientist should do. This is what Joshua has done with GAE. While I am not a scientist, I can still aspire to think like one.
I do not see how that is a failure. I am not intending to demonstrate that God is not deceptive, nor anything else do to with any gods. I am just attempting to provide an alternative hypothesis to GAE that is also consistent with all known science. Since no one has yet provided a scientific refutation of my hypothesis, I must conclude that I have succeeded.
1 Like