Agreed. But it hasn’t done well in explaining the inner workings of that cool universe
2 Likes
Agreed. What we have found is evidence of a mind behind origin events.
Let me be more clear here. It hasn’t done well scientifically. But I see plenty hints of a mind at work throughout the universe. But these inferences are more philosophical in nature.
3 Likes
I agree with this. It all depends where we demarcate science. Is inference to the best explanation a scientific claim or a philosophical one? Is inference to the best explanation a potential process of obtaining faith?
I consider science applied philosophy
1 Like
Can you expand on this idea?
No we haven’t.
I guess you don’t yet understand the evidence. Stay tuned.
Please stay on topic.
1 Like
It appears that we have reached agreement!
I’ve always felt that explaining how we determine the composition of Earth’s interior really shows how scientific inference works. We can use seismic waves and see how they move and bounce around to determine what materials are in the interior. We can hypothesize that if the interior is material (A) we should see seismic waves react in a certain way. The waves moved in that certain way. So the interior is likely material (A).But we can never directly test this. We aren’t Jules Verne
2 Likes
True. Not per se. But his argument in this particular discussion context sure sounds like a variation on that general trope. That was my point.
Moreover, although I am not qualified to dissect all of the technical details involved in that particular sub-thread’s debate, I am certainly prone to recall the many times I’ve observed both ID proponents and YEC advocates (among others) apply double-standards on the issue of “testability.” That is, I’ve seen so many demands for incredibly high levels of testability for the scientific claims of others which are generally relaxed or even ignored when describing cherished ID and YEC positions. That is my personal observation. (Obviously, it doesn’t apply 100% in every instance—but I’ve sure witnessed that double-standard quite often.)
That’s a nice example. I’m not sure @pnelson has really thought through what he means by a test, and if he really means to imply comparing the explanatory power and parsimony(for example) of models to data, is not a kind of test.
If he really thinks such inferences based on modeling, and If X happened we expect Y statements don’t amount to scientific tests, then one has to wonder just how much science @pnelson would have to throw away as untested “just so” stories. Would his IDcreationism stand up to such demands for tests?
Spot on. I wonder how @pnelson would go about testing the idea erosional forces carved the Grand Canyon? If he can’t think of any does that mean he’ll attack this as “a standing weakness of geologic theory since Lyell”?
1 Like
Exactly.
Joel will be so happy to learn that he’s been quote-mined by a creationist.
If this is supposed to constitute an analogy to this current situation you’re going to have to explain how.
1 Like
I’ve noticed over the years whenever you are pressed on one of your outlandish Creationist claims, your response is inevitably to link back to your own blog where you just repeat the claim. Looks like you are sticking to that formula.
1 Like