"Scientific Skepticism": Is there such a thing; and if so, what does it look like?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@cewoldt

Of course, there are volumes written on that which are accessible to all. To ask me to summarize them is an unreasonable ploy.

I’m sorry Craig, but that’s a straw man argument, and you know it as well as I do.

No-one is expecting you to summarise everything. That’s a cartoon caricature and a gross distortion of the point I actually made. You only have to summarise the points immediately relevant to your claims, and provide links to any supporting literature for anyone who wants to check. There’s nothing unreasonable about that whatsoever.

@cewoldt

Of course, much of what evolutionists claim as evidence is not reproducible, because the evidence is in the inaccessible past, not the present.

That is not how reproducibility works. We’ve been over this before, time and time again. The “were you there?” argument is a lie. When lake varves, ice cores and tree rings all agree with each other, that is reproducibility. When radiometric dating and GPS measurements of continental drift agree with each other, that is reproducibility.

There’s nothing “evolutionist” about this whatsoever. It’s how things work in every area of science.

@cewoldt

Science does not have rules. Scientists do. And for evolutionary scientists, the rules are rigged–“Head I win, tails you lose.”

Nonsense on stilts. In fact, to call it nonsense on stilts is an insult to nonsense on stilts.

Of course science has rules! To claim that science does not have rules is to claim that science is a free pass to make things up and invent your own alternative reality. If science didn’t have rules, you would be able to claim that mermaids were evidence for a young earth, because treknobabble.

As for the rules being rigged—is mathematics rigged? Is measurement rigged? Of course not! The idea that there’s anything “evolutionist” built into trigonometry, logarithms, complex numbers, differential equations, error bars, linear regression or SI units that discriminates against creationism is quite simply patent nonsense.

Sorry, but young earthism needs to sort out its compliance with the rules that aren’t rigged before even starting to discuss whether there are other rules that are.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

I am not saying that I believe that there are no truly random or undirected processes. Undirected processes may communicate better than random processes my understanding of the secular evolutionary community view. Is that a correct understanding?

Am I also correct then in saying that as an evolutionary creationist, you see evolution as a divinely directed process? If so, it seems EC differentiates itself from the secular evolutionary view, and even puts you at odds with it–divinely directed evolution which the secular evolutionary community rejects versus undirected evolution which EC rejects.

Then isn’t divine direction in evolution a supernatural intrusion into natural processes? Just trying to understand the EC view.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@cewoldt

I am not saying that I believe that there are no truly random or undirected processes.

As a Christian who praises God for his sovereignty over time and space, timing and placing, I am saying that. (We could talk about God’s omnitemporality, but that is for another time and place. ; - )

@cewoldt

Undirected processes may communicate better than random processes my understanding of the secular evolutionary community view. Is that a correct understanding?

No, because that is what the science says. It is no more secular than plumbing is secular. God’s direction is invisible to science whether the scientist is Christian or not. Can you tell if a Christian plumber or an unbelieving one plumbed where you work or live? (Hopefully either way, they did a good job. ; - )

@cewoldt

Am I also correct then in saying that as an evolutionary creationist, you see evolution as a divinely directed process?

Not all ECs believe that. Not all believe in God’s sovereignty as much as I do. Some might think that God ‘let go’ and ‘waited’ (a time-based word that I argue does not apply to our omnitemporal God), and waited to see what he had to work with, or something to that effect, maybe with variations. So my choice of moniker you will have noted is ‘evolutionary providentialist’.

@cewoldt

If so, it seems EC differentiates itself from the secular evolutionary view…

Not from the science… not from the plumbing. There is no such thing as the secular evolutionary view with respect to the actual science. It’s the plumbing.

@cewoldt

…and even puts you at odds with it–divinely directed evolution which the secular evolutionary community rejects versus undirected evolution which EC rejects.

There is no such thing as the secular evolutionary community, it’s the plumbing. Christians and unbelievers work side by side in the sciences and do the same work with the same evidence. How can it be different?! They also draw the same scientific conclusions. It’s how the plumbing works.

Let me try and elaborate on that a little. The plumber can be a Christian or an unbeliever, but the copper, and the atoms in the Schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe, the atoms in the PEX and so on – all the basic materials are the same for either one, right? Likewise with science, all the basic material to work with is the same for either scientist.

I reject undirected evolution as a Christian who believes in God’s providence, and of which I’ve been privileged to see quite a bit of in my years (I’ve been saying that I’m in my early to mid-geezerhood. ) But science is not going to prove the existence of providence. I believe there is very good empirical (as in factual) evidence for it, but one of my newest favorite quotes is this:

The grounds of [true] belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.

Roy Clouser

@cewoldt

And isn’t divine direction in evolution a supernatural intrusion into natural processes?

I have experienced God’s providential interventions into my life, but he hasn’t needed to break any of the natural laws he has instituted. Some may consider this sacrilegious, but think about it: Jesus didn’t have to break any natural laws to calm the storm on Galilee. A man in a boat said something during a storm. The storm just happened to stop. (Also note: “And it became completely calm.” So the disciples had to row all the rest of the way, demonstrating that it is better to believe, not be afraid, and trust God. )

So yes, providential interventions and ‘directed evolution’ are ‘supernatural intrusions’ into natural processes. But they are not scientifically detectable because no natural laws have been broken. And YECs seem to universally ignore this:

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…

Jeremiah 33:25

@cewoldt

Just trying to understand the EC view.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[T_aquaticus]

@cewoldt

Undirected processes may communicate better than random processes my understanding of the secular evolutionary community view. Is that a correct understanding?

Undirected and random are essentially synonyms in many cases. For example, the scientific consensus is that mutations are random with respect to fitness. This is the same as saying mutations are not directed by fitness. Some of the confusion comes from people saying that mutations are random without tacking on the “with respect to fitness” bit. It gets a bit tiring to repeat the whole phrase over and over, so it is often truncated to just random.

It is also worth mentioning that randomness in science is a statistical statement, not an ontological one. We create models of what a random outcome would look like, and then we compare that to the results of an experiment. If the observations match the model then we say the outcome is statistically indistinguishable from a random model. We don’t say that there is some deeper ontological conclusion that processes are “truly” random. Only that they look random from a statistical point of view.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

We create models of what a random outcome would look like

It is an ontological statement to say what a random (undirected) outcome should look like. Should it be uniform? Should it be chaotic?

I can’t help but marvel how this is hardly more apparent than when the universe in its absolute totality can be considered a random (undirected) outcome.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

One other thing that was brought up in the ChatGPT interview is that God is not always tweaking:

…your description of evolutionary creation makes it sound like God is constantly stepping into systems of natural processes and performing miracles to make those processes go the way God wants them to go.

My thought immediately goes to God’s omnitemporality and his freedom from the constraints of time because of the time dependent language in that thought, and that he doesn’t constantly perform miracles in his providence, violating the natural order.

And then it immediately gives a description of providence:

God’s activity is seen as working through the laws of nature and the natural processes that God has set in motion. This way of understanding God’s activity in the natural world emphasizes God’s sovereignty and wisdom, rather than a need for constant miraculous interventions.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

It is an ontological statement to say what a random outcome should look like.

Is it an ontological statement to say that 1 million coin tosses should give approximately 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Does that ‘uniformity’ apply to the distribution of material in the universe? How about the distribution of material and life on earth? They may be ‘random’ but they are not uniform! (Unlike my perception of Brownian motion.)

[heymike3]

Depends on the circumstances. But for where an ontological statement is not being made, it is an ontological statement to say how it should model.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Does that ‘uniformity’ apply to the distribution of material in the universe? How about the distribution of material and life on earth? They may be ‘random’ but they are not uniform! (Unlike my perception of Brownian motion.)

We see a non-random distribution of matter in our solar system. The mechanism we ascribe to that non-random distribution is gravity.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Depends on the circumstances. But for where an ontological statement is not being made, it is an ontological statement to say how it should model.

In what way is it an ontological statement? We can use the classic experiments on random mutations as an example. It was observed that the same number of mutations for antibiotic resistance occurred in the absence of antibiotic as it did in the presence of antibiotics. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. From that, we conclude that the potential benefit of the mutation had no discernable impact on how often the mutation occurred. How is that ontological in nature?

[heymike3]

If you can’t speak to the circumstances or prior conditions, how can you come up with a model of what outcome there should be?

EM noise as an undirected outcome is something I am better able to consider.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

If you can’t speak to the circumstances or prior conditions, how can you come up with a model of what outcome there should be?

What if you can speak to the circumstances or prior conditions?

[heymike3]

Then this would be an ontological statement… that is correct, isn’t it?

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Then this would be an ontological statement… that is correct, isn’t it?

That’s what I am asking you.

“It is an ontological statement to say what a random outcome should look like.”–heymike3

I am asking why that is the case. I don’t see why getting a 50/50 outcome from 1 million coin flips is an ontological statement. Can you explain?

[heymike3]

It’s when you say you should get a 50/50 outcome, even generally speaking, because to be exactly 50/50 would be an incredible coincidence for 1 million flips… I wonder if you could get that 1 time out of 1 million attempts.

@T_aquaticus

“It is an ontological statement to say what a random outcome should look like.”–

More like what would an undirected outcome look like:

Uniform, chaotic, or both?

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

It’s when you say you should get a 50/50 outcome, even generally speaking, because to be exactly 50/50 would be an incredible coincidence for 1 million flips… I wonder if you could get that 1 time out of 1 million attempts.

But what makes it an ontological statement?

[heymike3]

By saying what the outcome should be

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

By saying what the outcome should be

Then science is as ontological as saying 1 million flips of a coin should give close to a 50/50 distribution. I can live with that.

[heymike3]

I feel stupid asking this, but what happens when the outcome trends uniformly in one direction or the other? Does that mean you are getting better at flipping a coin?