“However that “if there is no God” is a very big “if”.”
What do you mean by ‘big’? Is it in terms of relevance? Explanatory power? Or is it just important to you because god must have a role somewhere.
I meant “big” as in relevance. “If there is no God” vs “if there is a God” has profound consequences on how we view the world and live, and so how the course of human history goes.
“So my next question is, what is science doing to figure out that “if”? The answer as far as I can see it is: very little. Which is surprising.”
No it isn’t surprising. Why investigate something that is unnecessary or irrelevant and provides no explanatory value?
When and how did we collectively decide that God is unnecessary, irrelevant and of no explanatory value? My point, which your comments seem to back up, is that this is assumed as an axiom.
Buildings, watches and televisions are all designed. They cannot evolve into place. Living organisms reproduce and are subject to forces of natural selection. Add huge amounts of time and voila – diversity of life. QED. The addition of god adds nothing to the explanation or the predictive power of the theory.
It’s true that human-engineered creations don’t evolve, except the systems which have been designed to evolve (so far, computer simulations only, because we haven’t yet managed to develop technology to make self-replicating machines). Also true that living organisms reproduce, have mechanisms for genetic variation, and are subject to natural selection. Creationists say these mechanisms themselves had to be created, and couldn’t arise naturally without God.
Tell me how to test for it. If it cannot be disproven and there is no evidence for it what is the point? Pardon me I state there is no evidence for it. If there is please enlighten me.
Sure, the Bible isn’t intended as a science textbook, but we can still make some testable predictions. Here are a few:
These biological systems, even given huge amounts of time, can’t produce a net increase in complexity.
The fossil record will never reveal the significant intermediates predicted by evolution, because there aren’t any. I’m talking about the big changes like reptiles to birds, whales to/from whatever, critters that transition from cellular blobs to the “cambrian explosion”.
Dog breeders, given huge amounts of time and the full range of dogs as a starting point, will be unable to produce a cat (never mind a bird from a lizard).
While I don’t think the earth is 6,000 years old, I do think the Bible says human beings originated with a single human couple (Adam and Eve) about 6,000 years ago. Genetic analysis should be consistent with this. E.g. “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam”. (Actually Y-chromosomal Adam should date from the global flood.) These analyses have already been done, and I realise the ages given clash with this prediction.
So, to say “creationism makes no useful predictions” seems a strange claim. A caveat: the Bible’s purpose is not a science textbook, but a text on God and the spiritual purpose of life, so to complain that it doesn’t make useful contributions to science is like complaining that a chemistry textbook doesn’t make useful contributions to morality. But in the scope of the question of origins, certainly the creationist view makes testable predictions.
If anyone is starting with a predetermined belief it is you.....there is a god......no let’s try to fit him in somewhere.
Well, I am biased as we all are (I have a Christian upbringing). On the other hand, all through my life I’ve been regularly confronted with evolution and humanism, and can’t avoid seriously asking, “So, is God there or not? Is the Bible true, or not?” So I think I have seriously considered the opposing view. When I try to seriously consider the evidence, I see problems with the theory: e.g. when I consider the fossil record, and ask “does it match the evolutionary theory?” the lack of transitional fossils stands out as a problem. Secondly, evolutionary explanations make a huge philosophical leap from demonstrating genetic variation on a small scale, to claiming that the same mechanisms on a large time scale can create life as we know it from goop. In the science domain, much of the evidence is “evidence against evolution”, and we would agree that negative evidence has certain limitations. Meanwhile, I also have evidence for my beliefs. In other domains besides traditional science, there is evidence, as I say in Part 2.
Hello. A few responses to your comments...
I meant “big” as in relevance. “If there is no God” vs “if there is a God” has profound consequences on how we view the world and live, and so how the course of human history goes.
When and how did we collectively decide that God is unnecessary, irrelevant and of no explanatory value? My point, which your comments seem to back up, is that this is assumed as an axiom.
It’s true that human-engineered creations don’t evolve, except the systems which have been designed to evolve (so far, computer simulations only, because we haven’t yet managed to develop technology to make self-replicating machines). Also true that living organisms reproduce, have mechanisms for genetic variation, and are subject to natural selection. Creationists say these mechanisms themselves had to be created, and couldn’t arise naturally without God.
Sure, the Bible isn’t intended as a science textbook, but we can still make some testable predictions. Here are a few:
So, to say “creationism makes no useful predictions” seems a strange claim. A caveat: the Bible’s purpose is not a science textbook, but a text on God and the spiritual purpose of life, so to complain that it doesn’t make useful contributions to science is like complaining that a chemistry textbook doesn’t make useful contributions to morality. But in the scope of the question of origins, certainly the creationist view makes testable predictions.
Well, I am biased as we all are (I have a Christian upbringing). On the other hand, all through my life I’ve been regularly confronted with evolution and humanism, and can’t avoid seriously asking, “So, is God there or not? Is the Bible true, or not?” So I think I have seriously considered the opposing view. When I try to seriously consider the evidence, I see problems with the theory: e.g. when I consider the fossil record, and ask “does it match the evolutionary theory?” the lack of transitional fossils stands out as a problem. Secondly, evolutionary explanations make a huge philosophical leap from demonstrating genetic variation on a small scale, to claiming that the same mechanisms on a large time scale can create life as we know it from goop. In the science domain, much of the evidence is “evidence against evolution”, and we would agree that negative evidence has certain limitations. Meanwhile, I also have evidence for my beliefs. In other domains besides traditional science, there is evidence, as I say in Part 2.