Well, I wasn’t planning on it since you acknowledged my point and revised your statement.
Are you going to answer how you are defining science and what constitutes a useful research program?
No, because it appears to be an irrelevant and pointless request intended only to waste my time, from someone who isn’t prepared to expend that much effort themselves.
If you have a point, make it. If not, H.A.N.D.
If You accept that there are Angels in the Holy Book, then to me this is something New by Me for You to read.
I was in my back room of the house and around the bathroom there was a loud vibration, it got my attention. A second later I saw a ball of light move through my back Yard and my Cat showed it was looking at it too, in was not my imagination. This occurred sometime in Oct after the 911 WTC event, I live in the New England area. There were also Balls of light seen around 8 Wks before in Carteret, NJ sky on July 17, 2001. Moses saw a Burning Bush.
My assessment is they were angels. I think all life’s DNA was adjusted by God by His Angels to adapt to the environment it lives in, with the appearance of Evolution and Mutation. My ancestors were from the United Kingdom area and my skin can’t handle Sunburn. People from Africa are dark skin and they’re skin can handle Sun better. Many people from Asian Lands can’t handle Milk and are Lactose intolerant, not many cows in Asia. Fish have Gills to get Oxygen. All are adjustments to DNA by Angels to me like Man’s CRISPR is doing today.
My final adjustment belief is that Us Humans were given the ability to Pray to God around the time of Adam and Eve as indicated in the Holy Book. We did not evolve from Monkeys. God does Exist with Angels.
Waste your time? You initiated a post on a Biologos forum, presumably looking to initiate conversation on the topic you chose. In that context, I don’t think it’s illegitimate to point out a factual inaccuracy with one of your claims or ask for clarity regarding others.
My point is that arguing ID isn’t science and isn’t useful is empty rhetoric unless you define those terms and show how ID fails to meet the criteria.
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Calling it an ostrich doesn’t make it an ostrich.
Not why they have dark skin.
Lactose tolerance is actually the result of a mutation which is more common in some populations. In the distant past the human population was lactose intolerant.
And some have gills and lungs.
Given it is not believed that humans evolved from monkeys you got this one correct by being wrong.
1 Like
If I can stick my nose under the tent here.
Science: A field of study that can make predictions which can be verified with testable hypotheses.
Once you include a supernatural agent that is directing the changes it becomes untestable. Any test which fails can be blamed on the action of the supernatural agent which is not cooperating with the test.
2 Likes
Some models of science place a good deal of emphasis on prediction, but one problem with this approach is the abundance of historical examples of incorrect models making correct predictions.
I’d argue that without God it would be impossible for any testing to be meaningful. That is, I think things needed for natural regularity, logic, reason and knowledge can only be provided by God.
At which point the incorrect models get thrown out. Science tends to be self correcting.
Edit to add: On a reread I misunderstood what you were saying. Can you give an example of a incorrect model that makes correct predictions. And Newton’s Laws don’t apply. Yes they are incorrect in some cases, but work fine here on Earth at normal speeds.
And I would argue that with God in the mix there is no way to predict the outcome. No one knows the mind of God so we can’t predict what He would do.
Indirectly yes. Those are found in the study of His creation but this doesn’t require God to be knowable in this creation.
1 Like
No worries. I think Newton is a valid example given both his incorrect conceptual frameworks (regarding space, time and gravity) and that his laws fail to universally obtain. But we could exclude Newton and look at Ptolemy, Bohr’s atomic model, and phlogiston. In our own day, it’s possible that the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity means one or both models are incorrect, yet each give successful predictions.
Well, I think it depends on what you mean by that. I believe the Lord gave us special and natural revelation, which allow us to know him and understand how he governs his creation (at least in a general sense).
It would seem that ID has been set up as either a cult or ideology and therefore cannot exist. If science ignores it then perhaps scientists are refusing to even consider it.
Let’s admit it, ID cannot be proven Also ID needs a Designer. If you are going to dismiss the notion of God, you are automatically going to dismiss ID.
I guess ID would prove the existence of God (aka the designer)
Oh dear
Richard
We have very different ideas on what counts as a successful prediction. As with Newton, there is a difference between useful and correct in all cases. Ptolemy for example fudged his observations to make them fit his model so do you consider that a “successful prediction”.
A general sense doesn’t allow us to predict what God is going to do or even explain why God did what He did in the past. Is there any way to explain the choices God made in evolution? Other than “God did it”.
1 Like
One of phlogiston’s main predictions was that metals would lose mass when they corroded or tarnished - which was unsuccessful, and led to phlogiston’s rejection.
All models are rejected, modified, or limited in scope when they are found to be incorrect.
Why am I hearing Kuhn whispering in my ear?
Tinnitus probably.
I wonder what predictions Bohr’s model made that led to it being displaced?
It failed to predict multiple spectral lines. It really only worked for hydrogen. So yeah, another “successful prediction”!
1 Like
Looking at nature as nature, aside from faith that there is more than what I see, I’m not sure how to understand this as evidence of teleology. Things do what they do, which is awesome and amazing. But I don’t understand this as evidence of any kind of telos, but of things operating according to the way they have developed.
I didn’t get through the entire article you shared, but recognize Fesser’s name, whom Vinnie has mentioned a number of times - I think in the offshoot thread from Understanding the Atheists’ PoV (Sorry @Roy, I know the name was something like this.) on Subjective and Objective Morality.
Telos described as successfully or unsuccessfuly completing as a task that a living thing is inclined by it’s DNA and environment to do seems like an explanatory tale, rather than an observation. I see Fesser’s evaluation of a living thing completing whatever (growth, I think he mentioned) well or poorly in the same light. It’s an explanatory tale enhanced by human preferences and vaules, applied to a natural process.
Certainly, but I don’t understand why natural processes and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicate that a movement in a particular direction is a telos. They go where they go dependent on the environment in which they exist and the properties of the material itself. To look back from the current state of things to idendentify this point as the current telos seems artifical to me.
Although, if one defines telos as “whatever the outcome is” it would work.
But I don’t believe anyone really understands “telos” to mean “whatever the outcome is.”
People generally mean that something is working toward an unavoidable end goal, whether the goal is know to the progressing componants or not.
I don’t see God this way.
Or this way.
I do, but not having abandoned it.
2 Likes
Ok. I think sharp line distinctions often need reevaluation.
It would be dependent on how one understands intentionality.
What is the process of protection, etc. Is it by choice, or is it something that is the way e-coli bacteria operate.
Certainly humans are always trying to do things to help us live longer and better as individuals and to prolong our survival as a species. And yes, those are conscious decisions.
I think this is rather different from evolution. Change in environment and/or genetic material is inevitable, not intentional ( aside from your human example). As the combinations are always different, some changes survive and continue; others don’t.
I see this rather as survival or not. Preference really doesn’t matter.
Even with humans, we have no idea if our various, often at odds, conscious, intentional attempts to survive or improve human experience will work. We can hope for these to be our telos, but there is no guarantee we won’t destroy ourselves in the meantime. Or make natural forms of reproduction impossible. Which would end our game.
I think this is an important distinction to make.
However, teleology ususally implies some sort of inevitible direction toward a specific end. I don’t see that as part of nature.
My idea is fairly straightforward; given model x, I would expect to observe the phenomenon y. If y is observed then a successful prediction has occurred.
I don’t disagree. Newton laws are useful fictions that assist us with anticipating certain phenomenon in certain contexts. That said, the conceptual framework is incorrect in the sense of correspondence with the actual ontology of the world. Which is why it fails in certain contexts.
I’m not an evolutionist, so I would deny the validity of the specific question. That said, can we understand why God does certain things? Yes, if that has been revealed to us. For example, I think the regularity of nature is rooted, at least in part, in the noahic covenant.
I don’t think you can have any explanation of natural laws with the Lord. That’s why Hume had to abandon induction as a reasonable act and classify it as a mental habit. That’s why Hawkins had to appeal to some vague meta-laws that “just are”. So, yes, I think the fact that the world is the Lord’s creation is the only thing that provides a reasonable context for both the working of nature and our ability to productively interact with it.
The argument isn’t that the theory never encountered conflicting phenomenon or did not eventually have a false prediction. It is simply that I think Bill_II’s definition of science runs into the issue of incorrect theories making accurate predictions. That is, I tend to think that prediction alone isn’t going to get you to a workable definition of “science”.
1 Like
Well, yes. It made a successful prediction regarding hydrogen spectral lines (as well as other phenomenon). And, in fact, the model is still utilized to teach beginning chemistry students. I can recall my chemistry professor in college saying something like “okay, so this is wrong, but it’s still a useful model”. In that sense, it’s like Newtons laws.