Stiiiiiilllll the question isn't answered.... Though I'm now convinced =
by your discussion that you see what I'm getting at. :^> =20
The question's two phrasings are not in any way contradictory. They're =
basically the short form and the long form of the same question.
Remember what "currently unknown phenomena" are: phenomena we don't =
currently know about. There is no implication whatever that these are =
not historical phenomena, even exclusively historical phenomena. =
"Currently" applies to "unknown"; after all, it's easy to make =
predictions concerning things we already know.
Clearly historical science is -less- experimental and empirical than =
operational science. That is -not- the issue, because just as clearly, =
historical science makes predictions about currently unknown phenomena =
(phenomena occuring in the past, and/or phenomena currently occuring).
I suspect you will actually agree with the above.
That said . . . the question remains (let me try one more phrasing): do =
you think any current creationistic theories that involve miraculous =
divine intervention as a part of the
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions than every evolutionary =
theory concerning -currently unknown- phenomena?
(By mentioning "miraculous divine intervention", I'm intentionally =
selecting a subset of intelligent design theories, which can include =
theistic evolutionary theories.)
It goes without saying that predictions are best when they are fairly =
precise and unambiguous, and when they clearly derive from the theory.
If you or others can show that the answer is "yes", you can win =
scientists en masse over to your case and turn the tide against =
methodological naturalism (which would be a devastating blow against =
ontological naturalism as based on scientism).
If not, I don't think such theories have a prayer when taken as science, =
though they may still be true, and they may still flourish as philosophy =
or theology. (Or hybrids.)
This is the fundamental issue, I still am convinced.
As one still undecided on these issues, what -I- would love to see is a =
list of such predictions from the various theories. Then we come back =
as the predictions are fulfilled or falsified, and see who wins.
My strong suspicion is this: despite the myriad and sometimes justified =
criticisms about the empirical failings of evolutionary theories, it =
will come out well ahead predictively of the various miraculous =
intervention theories. (Which does not imply that such theories are =
therefore -true-; but rather that they are the best practical theories =
available.)
--John
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 1996 5:01 PM
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: Hey! I'm not gone!
Trying to get unstuck from these discussions is making me feel like Dr.=20
Richard Kimble. I keep trying to get away, but all you Tommy Lee Joneses =
keep=20
nipping at my heels.
For the last time, I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE!
All right, let's try to make this the last time:
John Rylander says:
<<I think this is the crux of the matter. You avoided my most important =
=3D
question, saying it was inappropriate: Can creation science of some form =
=3D
offer better predictions than evolutionary theory of some sort?>>=20
What you originally asked me, though, was phrased differently:
<<Jim, let me ask you this: do you think any current creationistic =3D
theories that involve miraculous divine intervention as a part of the =
=3D
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions concerning currently =3D
unknown phenomena?>>
The key phrase here was "currently unknown phenomena." This is the =
syntax of=20
causal science. What you ask now is the more generic "predictions." This =
term=20
means something different in historical science, in my view.
Let me use an example. Suppose I want to find out why a certain =
population is=20
more susceptible to a certain disease than another. I can design an =
observable
operation, or experiment, which compares blood cells, let's say. I can =
form a=20
hypothesis and test it this way. Right? This is the scientific method. I =
do a=20
range of experiments. I can start to make predictions about the laws, or =
causality, at work in the here and now. My purpose? To find out what is=20
working, and why, so I can intervene and make people healthier.=20
Now let's switch to another question. Did life develop from common =
ancestors=20
via descent & modification? I'm looking for a window to the past. Due to =
the=20
extreme time factor invovled, it's not something I'm able to observe =
through=20
experimentation. [I can conduct experiments in a lab wherein I combine=20
chemicals and heat and see if they get together and dance. But that will =
only=20
explain what I can do NOW, not what really HAPPENED. However, it can =
make=20
judgments about past events more reasonable, depending on the outcome].
Well, in this case, where we're trying to find out WHAT HAPPENED =
(historical=20
science), and fortunately the past has left us a record of sorts. Now, =
you can
make a "prediction" here about what you'll find: say, transitional =
forms. You=20
go looking, and if you find them, you've got evidence for a certain =
thesis. If
you don't, you have a problem.=20
Those who invoke a designer can make similar predictions regarding the =
fossil=20
record. They might predict a dearth of transitions. They go looking, and =
find=20
that very thing. It seems to me there is nothing to preclude them from =
drawing
inferences from that record, as their naturalistic brothers have.
What about on the causal side? Here, the design proponent might also =
make=20
predictions subject to experimental falsification. They might predict =
that, on
the chemical level, complex information and irreducibly complex =
bio-chemical=20
systems will never arise through physical processes. All one needs to do =
is=20
conduct an experiment where this happens, and the thesis will be =
falsified.=20
I hope this helps both you and Tom Moore. If not, I'll chalk it up to my =
inability to express myself more clearly.=20
Jim