Only in the same sense as the geology: he’s simulating a real process. And how is that any different from creating a pair of humans out of nothing? The only difference is that the former requires faking stuff we have real data about, while the latter doesn’t. But is that difference so crucial?
Agreed. I don’t understand why the separate creation of Adam and Eve is crucial to Christianity. Of course there are plenty of Christians who don’t either. Perhaps you can explain.
If true, and I’m not sure it is, that does present a reason to advance the hypothesis, but it isn’t a reason to believe that the hypothesis is either true or not damaging to science.
To be fair to Mung, that was not at all clear to me from what you said. How much science do you think a person can rightfully overturn because of their theloogical implications? Some of us would go with “none”. You?
Why is the de novo creation of Adam and Eve necessary to the doctrine of original sin? Wouldn’t an ordinary pair, with ancestors and everything, be just as good for the purpose?
What miracles do you think could be studied through the scientific method?
I would argue that there is no scientific evidence for miracles or the de novo creation of Adam and Eve which is why it is not accepted in scientific circles. Science doesn’t exclude ideas because they run counter to some ideology. Rather, science requires ideas to be tested through the scientific method. Ideas that can’t be tested are simply put to the side.
Last Thursdayism is irrefutable. It is designed to be irrefutable (and perhaps to be ridiculed). So why waste our time objecting, when we can just ignore it?
To begin with, all those miracles that are consistent with evolutionary science. By way of example, the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. If it is consistent with science, then it can be studied through the scientific method. Wouldn’t you agree?
To be clear about my own position, it is not strictly Last Thursdayism. It’s Last Plankism. The universe is created anew each Plank time. It too is irrefutable, but for scientific reasons having to do with time and measurement.
I would study it though the scientific method. If it cannot be studied through the scientific method, I would conclude that it is not consistent with science.
I have offered two arguments for why the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is not consistent with evolutionary science. Or perhaps it is the same argument phrased two different ways.
I agree with Joshua that “It [science] does not accept them [miracles].” T_aquaticus seems to think that if there was evidence for miracles that they could be studied by science and that they would be accepted by science. As to your question of “how” I think that is more appropriately addressed to T_aquaticus.
No. It’s consistent with science purely because there are no conceivable data that could falsify it. That is, it’s consistent precisely because it can’t be studied.
I would, not surprisingly, argue the opposite. Like this:
If there are no conceivable data that could falsify it, it cannot be consistent with science. I have certainly heard this argument used many times against ID as the reason ID cannot be science. In order for a claim to be consistent with science it must be testable.
I think you have confused “consistent with science” and “be science”. A hypothesis that can’t be tested is consistent with the facts; it’s consistent with anything that might conceivably be the facts. But it isn’t science.
