From: Alexander L. Wild
The reason that scientists propose purely naturalistic mechanisms to
explain phenomena is that the alternative (the Supernatural) is a
research dead-end. Science has not got the proper equipment in its tool
box to probe the supernatural. God is omnipotent; he may alter the
results of any of our experiments. No matter how strong our efforts to
test, falsify, illustrate, or otherwise understand a Deity, our efforts
will never be able to corner the all-powerful. He is, by definition,
above our empirical reach. At the point when you invoke the
super-natural, you remove the topic from the reach of science. This is
not to say that a supernatural explanation is necessarily wrong. It is
merely unscientific. An independent researcher would be unable to come
to the same result you did. (Oh, he could very well agree that the cause
has a supernatural origin, but how would you know WHICH origin? You
might conclude God, he might conclude Teddy Roosevelt’s Ghost, and how,
empirically, could you tell the difference?)
Let us say that God DID create the world in roughly its present form.
Let us also say that I am researching a particular phenomenon: a
well-documented skewed sex ratio in social insect colonies (this topic,
while it appears obscure, has some practical relevance in controlling
pest ants like fire ants, and also for improving the science behind the
beekeeping industry).
So. God created the world. Where do I start? Why would God have
skewed the sex ratio in the social insects? Ummm.... Does the Bible say
anything about this? I could go and carefully document and measure this
skewed ratio again, maybe, but... What I really need to know is WHY they
have so many more females than males. Help me out here, maybe my own
imagination is lacking, but given a supernatural origin of ants, how am
I to know what God intended for them? Do I pray for the answer? And if
I get one, how should I test it? My research program is dead in the
water, and the fire ants continue to cut a swath across the southern US.
Now, let us look at the problem from a Darwinian perspective. So. Ants
came into existence through the continued differential reproduction of
genotypes. Why do the ants have a skewed sex ratio? Well, we know from
karyotypes that male ants are haploid (have only one copy of each
chromosome), and females are diploid, and that males are produced from
unfertilized eggs. If we work through the genetics here (trust me on
this, it is kind of complicated), it turns out that sisters share 3/4 of
their alleles with other sisters, and only 1/4 with their brothers. (See
Trivers and Hare, 1976. Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social
insects. Science 191: 249-263). This immediately suggests a hypothesis:
that the sex ratio is skewed because sisters (the workers) favor
production of genetically-similar sisters over less genetically similar
brothers.
Our Darwinian method has yielded a hypothesis, the starting point for
scientific inquiry (this particular example was answered by Boomsa and
Grafen 1990, Evolution 44: 1026-1034). From here we can design
experiments to test our idea. Compare this to the creation model, which
to the best of my ability, is unable to even generate a hypothesis other
than God’s will. I am not one to second-guess God. Sure, God may very
well have created ants, too. And I could also try to eradicate fire
ants through prayer.
My point is that Creation Science is not of great practical use in
answering detailed questions about living things, unless you know the
mind of God better than He does. By prematurely relegating nature into
the realm of the supernatural, you are shutting down our ability to pick
apart the nature of life. Agriculture will suffer. As will medicine.
What is worse, so will our ability to think critically.
I can only assume that you will disagree with me here. So, tell me how
Creationism generates hypotheses, and how we may test these hypotheses.
Alex Wild
entomologist
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Thank you for taking the time to comment...
>> The reason that scientists propose purely naturalistic mechanisms to explain phenomena is that the alternative (the Supernatural) is a research dead-end. Science has not got the proper equipment in its tool box to probe the supernatural. <<
First, please note that not all scientists propose purely naturalistic
mechanisms to explain all phenomena or all empirical observations, and
contrary to your claim, those who do not are not prone to end up in
research dead-ends. Just for example, there are over 650 members of
the Creation Research Society who have an earned masters degree or
better in a recognized field of science. They are scientists. They
do not propose purely naturalistic mechanisms to explain all phenomena
or all empirical observations, and their careers and studies have not
become research dead-ends.
We have more than one choice in responding to the obvious limitations
of science. The popular, prevailing choice (which, by the way, does
not necessarily make it the ‘correct’ choice) is to act as if whatever
science can’t touch is unreasonable, illogical, and essentially myth—if it can’t be verified by science, it’s of little value, if not
laughably superstitious.
Another choice is to recognize that science’s limitations are just
that: boundaries within which empirical observations work and are
useful. The empirical is not by definition all that matters or is
important, but a subset of all of human experience and knowledge.
We might popularly ‘talk’ the first choice, but we all ‘walk’ the
second choice. You and I act on matters and in ways that are not
empirically established for us every day, when we initiate or respond
to love, justice, compassion, cruelty, beauty, etc. These and other
aspects of human experience fall outside the realm of scientific
empiricism, yet we do not cast them aside as ‘unscientific’ and
(therefore) myth or superstitious because of it.
Yet when the creationary paradigm, while interpreting the same
empirical data as the evolutionary paradigm, happens to render more
credibile the most comprehensive explanation for both the empirical
and the non-empirical aspects of human experience, evolutionists
hasten to throw it all out, citing the ‘non-empirical’ implications as
somehow invalidating the empirical interpretations. Why? The only
reason I am aware of is nothing less than a predisposition
specifically against the non-empirical implications themselves, no
matter how substantial or comprehensive the empirical interpretations
may be.
>> God is omnipotent; he may alter the results of any of our experiments. No matter how strong our efforts to test, falsify, illustrate, or otherwise understand a Deity, our efforts will never be able to corner the all-powerful. <<
It is an error to assume that the creationary paradigm is the same
thing as “trying to ‘prove’ God with science”. This popular
caricature of the creationary position misses the boat entirely. The
objective is not to “prove” God but to interpret the empirical data in
accordance with the biblical paradigm of both history and origins—which happens to work rather well. The resulting implications that
the biblical record is accurate, and that (therefore) the God who
reveals Himself in the context of that record is truly who He claims
to be, do not invalidate the empirical interpretation side of the
creationary paradigm any more than the largely anti-biblical
implications of the evolutionary paradigm ipso facto invalidate it.
>> He is, by definition, above our empirical reach. <<
This is correct, but this does not render science a judge over
non-empirical truth. It merely reveals that there are distinct limits
to what science can determine as far as truth is concerned. The
problem many evolution proponents seem to have is they don’t want to
accept the notion that there is an immutable limit to the scope of
man’s scientific endeavors. This inacceptance directly linked to the
humanistic philosophy currently dominating “scientific thought”
wherein man is seen as the pinnacle of intelligence, commander of his
own fate, limitless in his potential—philosophical (not empirical)
concepts in the face of which fallibility, limits, and accountability
to a Creator are both antithetical and unwanted.
>> At the point when you invoke the super-natural, you remove the topic from the reach of science. This is not to say that a supernatural explanation is necessarily wrong. It is merely unscientific. <<
These statements seem to assume that science must somehow be for man
THE means of establishing true facts. On what basis is this
assumption validated? What makes this assumption more valid than the
assumption (as described above) that science is only ONE of the means
(e.g., as a tool) for man to establish true facts—particularly
within the realm of the empirical. As I’ve mentioned above, we all
rely every day on many non-scientific methods to arrive at conclusions
concerning true facts—yet we don’t routinely dismiss their implicit
or explicit correlations to the empirical on the grounds that the
non-empirical is “out of the reach of science”. It requires the use
of an unmitigated double-standard to reject the creationary paradigm
on such grounds, when we conduct our lives according to
non-empirically determined data every day.
>> Let us say that God DID create the world in roughly its present form. <<
Let’s not. That’s not what the creationary paradigm states, so why
should we use such an assumption as the basis for an argument? (Your
ignorance of the biblical creationary paradigm has begun to be
revealed here.)
>> ...So. God created the world. Where do I start? Why would God have skewed the sex ratio in the social insects? Ummm.... Does the Bible say anything about this? I could go and carefully document and measure this skewed ratio again, maybe, but... What I really need to know is WHY they have so many more females than males. Help me out here, maybe my own imagination is lacking, but given a supernatural origin of ants, how am I to know what God intended for them? Do I pray for the answer? And if I get one, how should I test it? My research program is dead in the water, and the fire ants continue to cut a swath across the southern US. <<
Your error here is that you think that subscribing to the biblical
paradigm somehow compels you to rely only on the Bible and prayer in
order to conduct science. This is another fallacious caricature of
creationary paradigm.
My son happens to be an aspiring entomologist. He has no trouble
understanding that ants were created by God. He loves to observe them
and study their behavior (along with wasps, bees, etc.). When he had
an “ant farm” we were all fascinated by the way the ants worked
together, and happened to recall the Scripture passages:
Go to the ant, O sluggard, Observe her ways and be wise,
Which, having no chief, officer or ruler,
Prepares her food in the summer,
And gathers her provision in the harvest. (Proverbs 6:6-8)
Interesting that the ancient text recognized that worker ants are
females, that they don’t have apparent “chief, officer or ruler” ants
directing their work, yet they work together in remarkable unison to
achieve a common goal. Now, we didn’t conclude that this was the end
of ant study—it was just a beginning. We recognize that other
aspects of ant physiology and behavior may be studied and understood
apart from what is recorded in Scripture, but—just the same—the
empirical facts themselves don’t contradict the Scriptures.
An entomologist who subscribes to the creationary paradigm asks the
same questions that you ask (i.e., “Why do they have so many more
females than males?”). He can run into some of the same dead-ends as
you do. The difference is simply that he does not share your
presuppositions when considering the empirical data and searching for
answers.
Now, while we’re on the subject, can you name one significant advance
in genuine, empirically-substantiated entomological knowledge that was
not possible without the presupposition of evolution (excluding
further evolutionary hypotheses)?
The example you cited, and the accompanying hypothesis, was very
interesting. But how exactly is it strictly an example of the
“Darwinian perspective”? Do you think that the creationary paradigm
rules out genetics? (If so, you are in error.)
How exactly do you “know” that “Ants came into existence through the
continued differential reproduction of genotypes”?
How exactly does your hypothesis (“the sex ratio is skewed because
sisters (the workers) favor production of genetically-similar sisters
over less genetically similar brothers”) substantiate your
predisposition towards Darwinism and against the creationary
paradigm? What exactly is it about the creationary parardigm that is
negated or challenged by the hypothesis?
Do either the hypothesis or the experiments designed to test it do
anything to substantiate Darwinism itself? If so, exactly how? How
are your end results better explained through the evolutionary
paradigm than the creationary paradigm?
>> ...Compare this to the creation model, which to the best of my ability, is unable to even generate a hypothesis other than God’s will... <<
This is because you are trying to use a CARICATURE of the creation
model, rather than the model itself. The model doesn’t compel you to
invoke God every time you have a question, and if you were even
basically familiar with the creationary model, you would know this.
Instead, you are mocking it from a distance, based quite apparently on
a position of ignorance. That approach is neither logical, nor
reasonable, nor scientific.
>> I am not one to second-guess God. Sure, God may very well have created ants, too. And I could also try to eradicate fire ants through prayer. <<
Your persistence at mocking your beloved caricature is noted—and
tiresome.
>> My point is that Creation Science is not of great practical use in answering detailed questions about living things, unless you know the mind of God better than He does. <<
My point is that you don’t know enough about Creation Science to be
making such arrogant statements about it.
>> By prematurely relegating nature into the realm of the supernatural, you are shutting down our ability to pick apart the nature of life. Agriculture will suffer. As will medicine. What is worse, so will our ability to think critically. <<
But no one is “prematurely relegating nature into the realm of the
supernatural” except those who are ignorant of the methodology of
creation science, and who prefer that ignorance to exercising some
critical thinking skills of their own. (It takes far more in the way
of critical thinking skills to compare the empirical data to two
different paradigms than to arbitrarily cling to one while mocking a
caricature of the other.)
>> I can only assume that you will disagree with me here. So, tell me how Creationism generates hypotheses, and how we may test these hypotheses. <<
Creationism doesn’t generate hypotheses any more than evolutionism
does. It’s the investigating observer of the empirical data—the
scientist—whose God-given creative abilities enable him to connect
the data in ways that suggest testable explanations for facts and
phenomena. The creationist simply holds to certain presuppositions
concerning the origin and Author of it all, while the evolutionist
holds to a different set. The notion that a logical, plausible
hypothesis that fails to invoke God is by default an “evolutionary”
hypothesis is as unfounded as the notion that any creationary
hypothesis by definition must invoke God.
You would do well to note that the founders of modern science were
largely biblical creationists, whose basis for experimenting in the
first place was their confidence that the handiwork of the great
Creator and Lawgiver revealed in Scripture was also subject to
consistent laws and order, allowing the scientific method (repetition,
measurement and observation) to be meaningful in the first place.
Without this confidence (which neither pagan religion nor atheism can
provide in and of themselves), science itself has no basis.
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Alexander L. Wild:
My impression after reading
through your reply is that you seem to be looking for grounds on which to
disagree with me, I can only assume because I am an evolutionist.
However, if you were to re-read my response a little more carefully, you
will find that we agree more than you think. I find that someof your
logical argument is quite sound, you are obviously an intelligent person.
We differ more in our assumptions. Also, I find it a bit distasteful how
you slipped into accusing me of various things. Lets try to keep this
on-topic and out of the mud.
Pay attention to my comments and tell me what you think.
>> First, please note that not all scientists propose purely naturalistic mechanisms to explain all phenomena or all empirical observations, and contrary to your claim, those who do not are not prone to end up in research dead-ends. Just for example, there are over 650 members of the Creation Research Society who have an earned masters degree or better in a recognized field of science. They are scientists. They do not propose purely naturalistic mechanisms to explain all phenomena or all empirical observations, and their careers and studies have not become research dead-ends. <<
You have missed my point, sort of. When I speak of “research dead-ends”,
I am in no way refering to careers, degrees, or academic recognition. I
am refering to the down-in-the-dirt, day-to-day workings of a scientific
study. Science requires testable hypotheses, and I think you can agree
that evolutionary biology DOES provide a theoretical framework for
producing hypotheses (though I think you instead disagree with
interpretation of the studies that examined these hypotheses). For
example, evolutionary theory has predicted that bird species with higher
parasite loads will have brighter male plumage. This is a concrete idea
that we may test empirically (measure parasitism rates, measure plumage
brightness, look for correlation). My issue with Creation Science is that
it is unclear to me how the creation model can be used to produce such
specific hypotheses. And without this important entryway into rational
enquiry, scientists can do little other than make observations. There is
no possibility of experimentation, and our research dead-ends.
Unless, of course, creationists can explain to us how we may generate
hypotheses using the creation model.
>> We have more than one choice in responding to the obvious limitations of science. The popular, prevailing choice (which, by the way, does not necessarily make it the ‘correct’ choice) is to act as if whatever science can’t touch is unreasonable, illogical, and essentially myth—if it can’t be verified by science, it’s of little value, if not laughably superstitious. <<
I find this approach to be a little hasty. I gather that we agree on this
point.
>> Another choice is to recognize that science’s limitations are just that: boundaries within which empirical observations work and are useful. The empirical is not by definition all that matters or is important, but a subset of all of human experience and knowledge. <<
I agree 100%.
>> We might popularly ‘talk’ the first choice, but we all ‘walk’ the second choice. You and I act on matters and in ways that are not empirically established for us every day, when we initiate or respond to love, justice, compassion, cruelty, beauty, etc. These and other aspects of human experience fall outside the realm of scientific empiricism, yet we do not cast them aside as ‘unscientific’ and (therefore) myth or superstitious because of it. <<
I’m with you here.
>> Yet when the creationary paradigm, while interpreting the same empirical data as the evolutionary paradigm, happens to render more credibile the most comprehensive explanation for both the empirical and the non-empirical aspects of human experience, evolutionists hasten to throw it all out, citing the ‘non-empirical’ implications as somehow invalidating the empirical interpretations. Why? The only reason I am aware of is nothing less than a predisposition specifically against the non-empirical implications themselves, no matter how substantial or comprehensive the empirical interpretations may be. <<
Ah, here we enter into disagreement. Do you agree with the statement that
the results of good science are repeatable, i.e., can be reproduced by an
independent researcher? If so, then we run into problems. “Non-empirical
aspects of the human existence”, however true they may be, differ from
person to person. Even within a religion this is likely true: do you not
think that each individual Christian has his own relationship with
Christ? An independent researcher, drawing on an (even slightly)
different spiritualilty, may reach a different conclusion about a
non-empirical matter. This violates the “repeatability” aspect of
science. Hence, the evolutionsist stance is not a pre-disposition towards
empirical interpretation, it is merely a recognition that human
spirituality differs from person to person in non-quantifiable ways, and
hence is not available to science. To me, this has no bearing on the
validity of religious experience one way or another.
>> >> God is omnipotent; he may alter the results of any of our experiments. No matter how strong our efforts to test, falsify, illustrate, or otherwise understand a Deity, our efforts will never be able to corner the all-powerful. << <<
>> It is an error to assume that the creationary paradigm is the same thing as “trying to ‘prove’ God with science”. This popular caricature of the creationary position misses the boat entirely. The objective is not to “prove” God but to interpret the empirical data in accordance with the biblical paradigm of both history and origins—which happens to work rather well. <<
Sorry to have missed the boat, but you have also missed my point. I speak
not of trying to “prove” God. Here is my main point: ideas that use God
as an explanation of natural phenomena are not scientifically testable.
This does not mean, however, that they are not true. I am a biologist.
It is my job to understand natural phenomena, and the way in which I do it
is through hypothesis testing, commonly referred to as the “scientific
method.” I cannot test ideas that include God. Not because I don’t want
to, nor because there is some kind of law against it, but because it is a
logical impossibility, as I think you can agree. God is beyond our
empirical reach. So I can either use empirical methods only, or quit
biology for some other line of work.
>> The resulting implications that the biblical record is accurate, and that (therefore) the God who reveals Himself in the context of that record is truly who He claims to be, do not invalidate the empirical interpretation side of the creationary paradigm any more than the largely anti-biblical implications of the evolutionary paradigm ipso facto invalidate it. <<
The order in which your analytical process runs (correct me if i am wrong)
is:
1. Accept the Bible as Truth regarding the origin of species
2. Gather evidence relating to the origin of species.
I am sorry, but any self-respecting scientist does not know his conclusion
before he starts his inquiry. I’ve heard creationists claim the same of
evolutionists. I have not much to say to that, except it does not match my
own perceptions of what scientists are actually doing.
For your argument to be scientific, it must run:
2. Gather evidence relating to the origin of species
1. Accept the Bible as Truth regarding the origin of species. (assuming
that is what the evidence indicates)
>> >> He is, by definition, above our empirical reach. << <<
>> This is correct, but this does not render science a judge over non-empirical truth. It merely reveals that there are distinct limits to what science can determine as far as truth is concerned. <<
You are absolutely correct. Do not look for disagreement between us
where there is none.
>> >> At the point when you invoke the super-natural, you remove the topic from the reach of science. This is not to say that a supernatural explanation is necessarily wrong. It is merely unscientific. << <<
>> These statements seem to assume that science must somehow be for man THE means of establishing true facts. <<
You misread me. I never claimed science to be the only method to
determine truth.
>> >> Let us say that God DID create the world in roughly its present form. << <<
>> Let’s not. That’s not what the creationary paradigm states, so why should we use such an assumption as the basis for an argument? (Your ignorance of the biblical creationary paradigm has begun to be revealed here.) <<
Ok, let us say that God created the world. Is this also out of line with
the creation model?
>> >> ...So. God created the world. Where do I start? Why would God have skewed the sex ratio in the social insects? Ummm.... Does the Bible say anything about this? I could go and carefully document and measure this skewed ratio again, maybe, but... What I really need to know is WHY they have so many more females than males. Help me out here, maybe my own imagination is lacking, but given a supernatural origin of ants, how am I to know what God intended for them? Do I pray for the answer? And if I get one, how should I test it? My research program is dead in the water, and the fire ants continue to cut a swath across the southern US. << <<
>> Your error here is that you think that subscribing to the biblical paradigm somehow compels you to rely only on the Bible and prayer in order to conduct science. This is another fallacious caricature of creationary paradigm. <<
Ok. Tell me what hypothesis the creation model suggests regarding skewed
sex ratios, and then I will believe you.
>> My son happens to be an aspiring entomologist. He has no trouble understanding that ants were created by God. He loves to observe them and study their behavior (along with wasps, bees, etc.). When he had an “ant farm” we were all fascinated by the way the ants worked together, and happened to recall the Scripture passages:
Go to the ant, O sluggard, Observe her ways and be wise,
Which, having no chief, officer or ruler,
Prepares her food in the summer,
And gathers her provision in the harvest. (Proverbs 6:6-8)
Interesting that the ancient text recognized that worker ants are females... <<
I find that interesting as well, thought about it the other day in the
shower. But I digress.
>> ...that they don’t have apparent “chief, officer or ruler” ants directing their work, yet they work together in remarkable unison to achieve a common goal. Now, we didn’t conclude that this was the end of ant study—it was just a beginning. We recognize that other aspects of ant physiology and behavior may be studied and understood apart from what is recorded in Scripture, but—just the same—the empirical facts themselves don’t contradict the Scriptures. <<
Maybe true. So, what is the Creationist hypothesis regarding skewed sex
ratios in ants? No offense, but it looks to me as though you are skirting
the question.
>> An entomologist who subscribes to the creationary paradigm asks the same questions that you ask (i.e., “Why do they have so many more females than males?”). He can run into some of the same dead-ends as you do. The difference is simply that he does not share your presuppositions when considering the empirical data and searching for answers. <<
I do not understand. Run me through the chain of logic by which a
creationist comes to a hypotheses to test. Even better, tell me how a
creationist tests it. Look, I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, I
really do want to know how a creationist would go about answering this
question.
>> Now, while we’re on the subject, can you name one significant advance in genuine, empirically-substantiated entomological knowledge that was not possible without the presupposition of evolution (excluding further evolutionary hypotheses)? <<
Yes. The observation that monogynous ant colonies have a 3:1 sex ratio of
reproductive females to males, while polygynous ants have a 1:1 ratio.
>> The example you cited, and the accompanying hypothesis, was very interesting. But how exactly is it strictly an example of the “Darwinian perspective”? <<
Genes that favor production of like genes (See Dawkins’ “The Selfish
Gene”) should increase in proportion in subsequent generations. This is a
profoundly evolutionist idea. You may claim that it is also consistent
with the creation model. I cannot disagree, but since I do not know what
the creationist model is, how can I test this?
>> Do you think that the creationary paradigm rules out genetics? <<
No. The problem is, I have NO IDEA what the creationist paradigm is, much
less what it rules out.
>> (If so, you are in error.) <<
How is it that you are arguing against an argument I have not yet made? I
find this to be a little odd.
>> How exactly do you “know” that “Ants came into existence through the continued differential reproduction of genotypes”? <<
I don’t. I was merely explaining how an evolutionary biologist produces
workable hypotheses. This is the starting assumption (for which there is
a great deal of evidence, but that is not the immediate subject at hand.)
How do you “know” that you are really reading this email, and it isn’t all
a big dream?
>> How exactly does your hypothesis (“the sex ratio is skewed because sisters (the workers) favor production of genetically-similar sisters over less genetically similar brothers”) substantiate your predisposition towards Darwinism and against the creationary paradigm? What exactly is it about the creationary parardigm that is negated or challenged by the hypothesis? <<
You misread my intent. The sex-ratio test was designed as an experiment
OF the Darwinian perspective. It had nothing to do with creation. It
substantiates the Darwinian hypothesis BECAUSE the hypothesis predicted
that, if sex ratios evolved through inclusive fitness, the ratios would be
3:1 and 1:1, respectively. Empirical evidence, gathered LATER, confirmed
this. It makes no assessment of creation, either positive or negative.
>> Do either the hypothesis or the experiments designed to test it do anything to substantiate Darwinism itself? If so, exactly how? How are your end results better explained through the evolutionary paradigm than
the creationary paradigm? <<
How can I compare the two if I have no idea of what a creationist
hypothesis is? Once somebody fills me in on it, then I can tell you.
>> >> ...Compare this to the creation model, which to the best of my ability, is unable to even generate a hypothesis other than God’s will... << <<
>> This is because you are trying to use a CARICATURE of the creation model, rather than the model itself. The model doesn’t compel you to invoke God every time you have a question, and if you were even basically familiar with the creationary model, you would know this. Instead, you are mocking it from a distance, based quite apparently on a position of ignorance. That approach is neither logical, nor reasonable, nor scientific. <<
Thank you, for that lively personal attack. What IS the creation model?
Since I have yet to hear how Creationists generate hypotheses, I can do
little other than caricature the “creation model”.
>> >> I am not one to second-guess God. Sure, God may very well have created ants, too. And I could also try to eradicate fire ants through prayer. << <<
>> Your persistence at mocking your beloved caricature is noted—and tiresome. <<
Ask yourself: was that last comment really necessary?
>> >> My point is that Creation Science is not of great practical use in answering detailed questions about living things, unless you know the mind of God better than He does. << <<
>> My point is that you don’t know enough about Creation Science to be making such arrogant statements about it. <<
What can I do, besides read Gish, Morris, Johnson, Behe, Denton, and
peruse trueorigins.org and answersingenesis? I’m trying to understand it,
yet almost all I get from these sources is attacks on evolution, as if
disproof of evolution somehow confers literal truth on Genesis.
Look. Here is the problem faced by myself and other professional
biologists. We study living things. In order to understand these living
things, passive observation only goes so far. We need to experiment, we
need to create ideas and test them. Evolution, true or not, has provided
a very useful theoretical framework for this sort of inquiry. The sheer
“odd-ness” of the idea of evolution itself leads to myriad questions.
This is where the scientific process begins.
Creationism, as I understand it, wishes to be seen as a scientific
alternative to evolution. Fair enough. But we biologists need to
continue working. We cannot just abandon a theory that gives structure to
what we do without replacing it with something that is equally good at
providing structure. Once creationism produces a way for us to go about
making and testing hypotheses, then we will pay it more heed. Until then,
your arguments against evolution will fall on deaf ears.
>> >> By prematurely relegating nature into the realm of the supernatural, you are shutting down our ability to pick apart the nature of life. Agriculture will suffer. As will medicine. What is worse, so will our ability to think critically. << <<
>> But no one is “prematurely relegating nature into the realm of the supernatural” except those who are ignorant of the methodology of creation science... <<
What IS the methodology of Creation Science? Explain it to me, because I
do not, as you point out, understand it.
>> ...and who prefer that ignorance to exercising some critical thinking skills of their own. (It takes far more in the way of critical thinking skills to compare the empirical data to two different paradigms than to arbitrarily cling to one while mocking a caricature of the other.) <<
Thank you, too, for this additional personal slander.
>> >> I can only assume that you will disagree with me here. So, tell me how Creationism generates hypotheses, and how we may test these hypotheses. << <<
>> Creationism doesn’t generate hypotheses any more than evolutionism does. <<
Evolution DOES generate hypotheses. In the case that you don’t believe
me, here are a couple:
1. Individuals belonging to species with high reproductive rates should
senesce (age) earlier than species with low reproductive rates.
2. In sexually dimorphic species, the gender that invests most heavily in
the offspring will be the one that exercises mate selection.
The whole gist of my last letter was: show me a testable creationist
hypothesis! I was not asking you to attack evolution, I was not asking
you to attack ME, and I was not asking you to tell me about your son,
although I’m glad to hear he likes bugs. I was asking you to tell me how
to use the creation model to answer some questions that I have about
living things. This is not a matter of personal belief, this is a matter
of practical concern in how I am to manage my own scientific program.
>> It’s the investigating observer of the empirical data—the scientist—whose God-given creative abilities enable him to connect the data in ways that suggest testable explanations for facts and phenomena. The creationist simply holds to certain presuppositions concerning the origin and Author of it all, while the evolutionist holds to a different set. <<
We run into a practical difficulty here as well. If we are to use two
different standards for what is science, we destroy science’s wide
applicability to real-world problems.
>> The notion that a logical, plausible hypothesis that fails to invoke God is by default an “evolutionary” hypothesis is as unfounded as the notion that any creationary hypothesis by definition must invoke God. <<
Yes, I do agree with you here. So, what ARE some creationist hypotheses?
I do not care if they invoke God or not. I just have never seen a
testable creationist hypothesis.
>> You would do well to note that the founders of modern science were largely biblical creationists... <<
James Watson and Francis Crick? Barbara McClintock? Robert Oppenheimer?
Albert Einstein?
>> ...whose basis for experimenting in the first place was their confidence that the handiwork of the great Creator and Lawgiver revealed in Scripture was also subject to consistent laws and order, allowing the scientific method (repetition, measurement and observation) to be meaningful in the first place. Without this confidence (which neither pagan religion nor atheism can provide in and of themselves), science itself has no basis. <<
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you sense a pattern in my
questions to you? I would greatly appreciate it if you could lay down the
principles of Creation Science, since I appear to be ignorant of them,
and give me some reason why I should consider using them in my own
projects.
Alex Wild
Response from Timothy Wallace:
>> ...My impression after reading through your reply is that you seem to be looking for grounds on which to disagree with me, I can only assume because I am an evolutionist. <<
Allow me to remind you that it was not I who wrote to you a message
based entirely on (and advocating) my own presuppositions, while
disparaging yours. Rather, you took it upon yourself to take such
action in writing to me. Under these circumstances I need not “look
for” grounds on which to disagree with you; you have willingly
presented them to me in the content of your message, apparently
disagreeing with me precisely because I am a creationist.
>> ...I find it a bit distasteful how you slipped into accusing me of various things. Lets try to keep this on-topic and out of the mud. <<
If you would care to cite any of my comments which you consider false
or substantially inaccurate accusations (and exactly why), I am
certainly willing to consider retracting and apologizing for them.
Otherwise, please don’t assume that you can make questionable or
unsubstantiated claims with impunity.
>> ...You have missed my point, sort of. When I speak of “research dead-ends”, I am in no way refering to careers, degrees, or academic recognition. <<
I don’t think I missed your point. I wasn’t referring exclusively to
careers, degrees, or academic recognition either, but to credentialed
scientists who operate “down-in-the-dirt, day-to-day”—but under the
creationary paradigm.
>> ...evolutionary theory has predicted that bird species with higher parasite loads will have brighter male plumage. <<
What exactly is the evolutionary logic that leads to the prediction
that bird species with higher parasite loads will have brighter male
plumage? And how exactly would brighter male plumage in bird species
with higher parasite loads unequivocally substantiate evolution?
>> ...My issue with Creation Science is that it is unclear to me how the creation model can be used to produce such specific hypotheses... <<
Is it unclear to you because you have found no hypotheses in the CRSQ
or the CENTJ? Or is it unclear because you haven’t looked?
>> Unless, of course, creationists can explain to us how we may generate hypotheses using the creation model. <<
(Who is “us”?) You’ll find much more than the mere “how” in the
creationary journals.
>> >> Yet when the creationary paradigm, while interpreting the same empirical data as the evolutionary paradigm, happens to render more credibile the most comprehensive explanation for both the empirical and the non-empirical aspects of human experience, evolutionists hasten to throw it all out, citing the ‘non-empirical’ implications as somehow invalidating the empirical interpretations... << <<
>> Ah, here we enter into disagreement... “Non-empirical aspects of the human existence”, however true they may be, differ from person to person... <<
You have apparently misunderstood my statement. In fact, you are
doing exactly what I described in the above paragraph. You are
focusing on matters connected with the IMPLICATIONS that arise from
the valid application of the empirical data to the creationary
paradigm (i.e., religious experience). You are not looking at the
data vis-a-vis the paradigm, but have bypassed that in order to
question whether the subsequent implications are scientifically
valid. The creationist doesn’t necessarily concern himself with
making those “non-empirical aspects of the human existence”
empirically valid, but with conducting day-to-day empirical science on
the basis of the same fundamental presuppositions from which those
“non-empirical aspects” also arose.
Likewise, the evolutionist doesn’t necessarily concern himself with
making his own “non-empirical aspects of the human existence”
empirical, but he also conducts empirical science on the basis of the
same fundamental presuppositions from which his “non-empirical
aspects” arose.
>> ...Here is my main point: ideas that use God as an explanation of natural phenomena are not scientifically testable. This does not mean, however, that they are not true. <<
It is not necessarily the objective or practice of the creationist to
“use God as an explanation of natural phenomena.” Your “main point”
is still based on a caricature of the creationary paradigm.
>> ...I cannot test ideas that include God... <<
That is correct. God, by definition, is not subject to science.
However, that doesn’t render as untrue anything that God has revealed
about Himself. Science is a tool—just one of several—that man
uses to learn. Science, by definition, is not guaranteed to be
exhaustively comprehensive in the range of valid, true knowledge which
man may learn by using that tool. It is not science itself, but the
ideology of “scientism”, that claims science to be capable of of
finding all relevant answers, and dismissing that which cannot be
known empirically. (This is the approach which you describe as “a
little hasty”.)
>> ...God is beyond our empirical reach. So I can either use empirical methods only, or quit biology for some other line of work. <<
This seems to be a non sequitur. What logical connection is there
between God’s being beyond empirical reach and your only two choices
being empirical science or no science at all?
>> The order in which your analytical process runs (correct me if i am wrong) is:
1. Accept the Bible as Truth regarding the origin of species
2. Gather evidence relating to the origin of species.
I am sorry, but any self-respecting scientist does not know his conclusion before he starts his inquiry... <<
Let’s try it another way: The order in which most evolutionists’
analytical process runs (correct me if I am wrong) is:
1. Accept naturalism as a fundamental ideology and evolution as Truth
regarding the origin or species.
2. Gather evidence relating to the origin of species.
I’m sorry to have to tell you this but everybody has presuppositions
(even those who pretend not to).
>> I’ve heard creationists claim the same of evolutionists. I have not much to say to that, except it does not match my own perceptions of what scientists are actually doing. <<
On what exactly are your “perceptions” based? The popular claim that
“good” scientists are “empty slates” waiting for the data to
automatically create a hypothesis in their freshly voided minds? It
is certainly a noble thing to suppress one’s bias as best as one is
able while gathering and examining the data, and many people do (some
better than others). OTOH, it is a fallacy to pretend that people in
general—and scientists in particular—are fully capable of doing
so at will. (Do you spend more of your time just sitting and looking
at the empirical data or comparing the data to a specific hypothesis?)
>> For your argument to be scientific, it must run:
2. Gather evidence relating to the origin of species
1. Accept the Bible as Truth regarding the origin of species. (assuming that is what the evidence indicates) <<
Likewise with yours. However, that’s not the way either side really
operates. Creationists readily admit that they examine the evidence
in light of the creationary paradigm. Many evolutionists, OTOH,
insist that the evidence “led them” or “compelled them” to their
evolutionary conclusions. They deny any outside influences (peers,
professors, employers, the literature, the media...). How realistic—or honest—is that? When asked about their objectivity (i.e.,
how carefully or thoroughly they have examined the literature of the
creationary alternative) they often betray a gross ignorance—yet
they insist that they are unbiased in their handling of the data.
>> >> ...It requires the use of an unmitigated double-standard to reject the creationary paradigm on such grounds, when we conduct our lives according to non-empirically determined data every day. << <<
>> This is moot, since I do not disagree with you here. <<
So you agree that the creationary paradigm is not invalidated by the
fact that its implications are “out of the reach of science”his is moot
>> >> >> Let us say that God DID create the world in roughly its present form. << << <<
>> >> Let’s not. That’s not what the creationary paradigm states, so why should we use such an assumption as the basis for an argument? (Your ignorance of the biblical creationary paradigm has begun to be revealed here.) << <<
>> Ok, let us say that God created the world. Is this also out of line with the creation model? <<
Of course not.
>> Ok. Tell me what hypothesis the creation model suggests regarding skewed sex ratios, and then I will believe you. <<
(...believe me about what?)
It seems to me that you are assuming that every hypothesis of science
must either have an evolutionary origin or a creationary origin.
That’s a false assumption. I don’t know of an exclusively
“creationary” hypothesis for skewed sex ratios—but nor have you
presented an unequivocally “evolutionary” hypothesis for the same.
>> ...So, what is the Creationist hypothesis regarding skewed sex ratios in ants? <<
Like I said, I don’t know of an exclusively “creationary” hypothesis
for skewed sex ratios—but nor have you presented an unequivocally
“evolutionary hypothesis” for the same.
>> No offense, but it looks to me as though you are skirting the question. <<
It seems a bit sophomoric to ask me the same question twice in the
same message and then accuse me of “skirting the question” for failing
to have answered it between the first and second times you typed
it(!).
>> ...Run me through the chain of logic by which a creationist comes to a hypotheses to test. <<
The same way anyone else does it: He sees patterns in the data
(through observation, repetition, measurement), he relates them to
what he knows or assumes to be fact, he posits what he considers
plausible assumptions and the conclusions to which they may lead.
>> Even better, tell me how a creationist tests it. <<
The same way anyone else does: He devises experiments (more
observation, repetition, measurement) by which his assumptions and/or
conclusions may be falsified, he executes his experiments, and
depending on the results, he modifies, dumps, further develops, or
presents his hypothesis for review by others.
>> Look, I’m not trying to be antagonistic here... <<
I’ll take your word for it. It does puzzle me, however, that you
should assume a creationary scientist would not use the scientific
method.
>> >> Now, while we’re on the subject, can you name one significant advance in genuine, empirically-substantiated entomological knowledge that was not possible without the presupposition of evolution (excluding further evolutionary hypotheses)? << <<
>> Yes. The observation that monogynous ant colonies have a 3:1 sex ratio of reproductive females to males, while polygynous ants have a 1:1 ratio. <<
Okay, now what exactly made that knowledge not possible without the
presupposition of evolution?
>> >> The example you cited, and the accompanying hypothesis, was very interesting. But how exactly is it strictly an example of the “Darwinian perspective”? << <<
>> Genes that favor production of like genes ... should increase in proportion in subsequent generations. This is a profoundly evolutionist idea... <<
No, it is not. It is a manifestation of natural selection. Natural
selection is not “a profoundly evolutionist idea” even though it is
popularly touted as such. It was an observed, documented, and
published (by creationists, no less) phenomenon years before Darwin
published.
>> You may claim that it is also consistent with the creation model. I cannot disagree, but since I do not know what the creationist model is, how can I test this? <<
You can ask the right questions: What exactly does natural selection
demonstrate? Is it a phenomenon that generates new genetic
information? No, it only acts on (i.e., selects from) whatever
genetic information is present in the subject population’s gene pool.
Does it result in the development of new organs or traits known
unequivocally and absolutely to have previously been absent from the
population’s gene pool, and/or which cannot be attributed to a loss of
genetic information? No, again, it only acts on whatever genetic
information is present in the subject population’s gene pool. If
information is lost (i.e., through mutations), “new traits” may
appear, but they are usually eliminated from the pool
via differential reproduction, and they are seldom beneficial.
Evolution calls for the addition of truly new genetic information—not just the preservation of what is already there. Evolution
supposedly relies on natural selection, but they are not one and the
same—and in fact natural selection is simply an observable
phenomenon of living organisms.
To test it even further, you could ask what exactly it is about
natural selection that disqualifies it from fitting the creationary
paradigm? Or what exactly it is about natural selection that
qualifies it exclusively for the evolutionary paradigm?
>> How is it that you are arguing against an argument I have not yet made? I find this to be a little odd. <<
You have implied from the beginning that you are operating under the
assumption that natural selection is what you’ve called “a profoundly
evolutionist idea.” I was challenging you to examine your assumption—not arguing against an argument you have not yet made.
>> >> How exactly do you “know” that “Ants came into existence through the continued differential reproduction of genotypes”? << <<
>> I don’t... <<
Okay, so the “evolution” part of the hypothesis has not been
established, but is an assumption. Now, is it a necessary
assumption? In other words, do the dynamics of genetics and natural
selection operate in such a way that the hypothesis works whether the
evolutionary assumption is included or not?
>> How do you “know” that you are really reading this email, and it isn’t all a big dream? <<
That seems like a facetious (though not invalid) question—and it’s
a deliberate departure from empirical science to non-empirical. So,
let’s not go there just now.
>> >> How exactly does your hypothesis (“the sex ratio is skewed because sisters (the workers) favor production of genetically-similar sisters over less genetically similar brothers”) substantiate your predisposition towards Darwinism and against the creationary paradigm? What exactly is it about the creationary parardigm that is negated or challenged by the hypothesis? << <<
>> You misread my intent. The sex-ratio test was designed as an experiment OF the Darwinian perspective. ... It substantiates the Darwinian hypothesis BECAUSE the hypothesis predicted that, if sex ratios evolved through inclusive fitness, the ratios would be 3:1 and 1:1, respectively. Empirical evidence, gathered LATER, confirmed this. <<
Okay, now what is the logical process by which you arrived at your
assumptions and conclusions? Let’s break it down:
1) if sex ratios evolved through inclusive fitness
(premise/assumption)
2) the ratios would be 3:1 and 1:1, respectively
(conclusion)
So, assuming that the conclusion has been confirmed (i.e., the ratios
are 3:1 and 1:1, respectively), does this unequivocally verify the
premise/assumption? Are ratios of 3:1 and 1:1, respectively,
attainable only through evolution? If not, then the premise is
certainly not substantiated by the conclusion (in logic, this is known
as a non sequitur - [in this case] affirming the consequent). If so, then how
exactly do we know unequivocally that ratios of 3:1 and 1:1 are
attainable only through evolution?
>> >> Do either the hypothesis or the experiments designed to test it do anything to substantiate Darwinism itself? If so, exactly how?... << <<
>> How can I compare the two if I have no idea of what a creationist hypothesis is?... <<
You don’t have to know anything about anything creationary in order to
answer the two questions above.
>> >> >> ...Compare this to the creation model, which to the best of my ability, is unable to even generate a hypothesis other than God’s will... << << <<
>> >> This is because you are trying to use a CARICATURE of the creation model, rather than the model itself. The model doesn’t compel you to invoke God every time you have a question, and if you were even basically familiar with the creationary model, you would know this. Instead, you are mocking it from a distance, based quite apparently on a position of ignorance. That approach is neither logical, nor reasonable, nor scientific. << <<
>> Thank you, for that lively personal attack. <<
If the shoe fits... You needn’t fear any “attack” as long as you
refrain from the above described behavior. Do you deny using a
caricature rather than the creation model itself? Do you deny being
less-than-familiar with the creationary model? Do you deny mocking
the creationary model from a position of ignorance? Do you claim this
approach to be logical, reasonable, or scientific?
>> What IS the creation model? <<
Excellent question. Not unlike the evolution model, there is no
simple answer. However, the essentials of the biblical creation model
flow from these principles upheld by the Creation Research Society:
- The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student
of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is
a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
- All basic types of living things, including man, were made
by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week
described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred
since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within
the original created kinds.
- The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to
as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its
extent and effect.
- The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one
man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the
basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all
mankind. Salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ
as our Savior.
There are other “short versions” which de-emphasize the biblical
aspect, but I see no reason to downplay the most fundamental
presupposition of the model. There are plenty of books, magazines and
journals that round out the paradigm—some almost exclusively from
an empirical angle, others not so much so. (If you’re serious about
learning more about it, let me know and I’ll provide a list.)
>> Since I have yet to hear how Creationists generate hypotheses, I can do little other than caricature the “creation model”. <<
That’s another non sequitur. You’re trying to use ignorance as an
excuse for mocking the very thing of which you are ignorant.
>> >> >> I am not one to second-guess God. Sure, God may very well have created ants, too. And I could also try to eradicate fire ants through prayer. << << <<
>> >> Your persistence at mocking your beloved caricature is noted—and tiresome. << <<
>> Ask yourself: was that last comment really necessary? <<
No, I’ll ask you by what right you fire off such juvenile, sarcastic
comments and then react like a self-righteous, wounded saint when you
are taken to task for your own childish behavior? Don’t play your
sophomoric games with me. If you had asked yourself your own question
before penning that sardonic derision, you wouldn’t have to answer for
it.
>> >> My point is that you don’t know enough about Creation Science to be making such arrogant statements about it. << <<
>> What can I do, besides read Gish, Morris, Johnson, Behe, Denton, and peruse trueorigins.org and answersingenesis? <<
Who do you think you’re fooling? For your information, neither
Johnson nor Behe nor Denton claim to be creationists. And it’s not
easy to read much Gish or Morris without getting a fair picture of the
creationary paradigm.
Exactly what have you read by them??
Have you ever looked at a Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)?
How about a Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)? (These are
peer-reviewed journals, featuring material submitted by a variety of
authors, mostly scientists.)
>> Here is the problem faced by myself and other professional biologists... <<
[Correction: “other evolutionary biologists”]
>> We study living things. In order to understand these living things, passive observation only goes so far. We need to experiment, we need to create ideas and test them. Evolution, true or not, has provided a very useful theoretical framework for this sort of inquiry... <<
Nobody is denying you and your evolutionary colleagues that
opportunity. It is not that at all that is the trouble, but the
unsubstantiated assumption on the part of many evolutionists that the
“theoretical framework” under which you happen to conduct your inquiry
is the only one or the best one—especially while being careful to
avoid careful inquiry into the creationary alternative.
>> The sheer “odd-ness” of the idea of evolution itself leads to myriad questions. This is where the scientific process begins. <<
The creationary paradigm operates in the same way—questions abound
(that’s where CRSQ and CENTJ come in).
>> Creationism, as I understand it, wishes to be seen as a scientific alternative to evolution. Fair enough. But we [evolutionary] biologists need to continue working... <<
So please do. Creationary biologists are doing the same. Jonathan
Wells is one example, who happens to have a few essays on the
TrueOrigin site. So is Royal Truman.
>> We cannot just abandon a theory that gives structure to what we do without replacing it with something that is equally good at providing structure. <<
You’re talking about a major paradigm shift—really a paradigm
revolution. You know it’s not as simple as everybody taking off their
evolution hats and putting on creation hats—and no one is
suggesting anything like that. In fact, I’m not even suggesting that
you should be working under the creationary framework. However, the
more you really, honestly examine it and compare the empirical data to
it, the more you’ll realize that the data itself does not invalidate
it. You may still choose to subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm,
but you would at least appreciate the creationary paradigm for
something besides the popular caricature that many scientists are
persuaded it is.
>> ...your arguments against evolution will fall on deaf ears. <<
That just doesn’t sound like an objective scientist. If your paradigm
is so fixed in your mind that you are resolved to reject out-of-hand
any arguments against it, then you are practicing intellectual bigotry—not science—when it comes to the question of origins.
>> Evolution DOES generate hypotheses... <<
No, it doesn’t. The paradigm itself doesn’t generate hypotheses. New
hypotheses are generated by men, not the presuppositions under which
they operate. The examples you give do not exclusively substantiate
evolution. If you will apply some critical thinking skills and logic
to the assumptions and conclusions of your examples (as I did to the
one above), you will see what I mean.
>> The whole gist of my last letter was: show me a testable creationist hypothesis! <<
For starters, the first creationist hypothesis was that since God is
Creator and moral Law-Giver, His creation must also operate under
ordered laws. This hypothesis is what gave birth to modern science.
If the likes of Copernicus, Newton, Linnaeus, and others hadn’t
subscribed to—and tested—this hypothesis, there wouldn’t be a
basis for a scientific method today. We have a reasonable expectation
that observation, repetition and measurement will produce consistent
results under consistent conditions BECAUSE of their initial
assumption that God’s handiwork would function with some semblance of
consistency.
(Evolution, the notion that everything is always changing, didn’t come
along until later, after the scientific method had become fairly well
established—by Bible-believing Christians.)
Now, if you tell me which books you have by Gish and Morris, and I’ll
look up the creationist hypotheses they cite and tell you which pages
they’re on. Otherwise they aren’t that hard to find in the literature
(if you’re really looking for them). I can only assume that you’re
looking for hypotheses that substantiate the creation paradigm.
>> ...I was asking you to tell me how to use the creation model to answer some questions that I have about living things... <<
That sounds interesting. What are those specific questions? I may be
able to find and forward to you some articles or papers in response to
your questions from a creationary point of view.
>> >> ...The creationist simply holds to certain presuppositions concerning the origin and Author of it all, while the evolutionist holds to a different set. << <<
>> We run into a practical difficulty here as well. If we are to use two different standards for what is science, we destroy science’s wide applicability to real-world problems. <<
That’s not true. The same standard for “what is science” applies to
both models. It is the study of the empirical evidence vis-a-vis the
two models that is different. It no more “destroys science’s wide
applicability” than do any other two competing paradigms. (Of course,
those who erroneously insist that science and evolution are somehow
exclusively synonymous will never agree, but that doesn’t change the
truth a bit.)
>> I just have never seen a testable creationist hypothesis. <<
Where have you looked?
>> >> You would do well to note that the founders of modern science were largely biblical creationists, << <<
>> James Watson and Francis Crick? Barbara McClintock? Robert Oppenheimer? Albert Einstein? <<
No, I said founders—Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Cuvier,
Maxwell, Kelvin, Mendel, Agassiz, and Linnaeus, among others.
>> Do you sense a pattern in my questions to you? <<
Yes. You began by making unsubstantiated claims about science and the
supernatural, splattered sarcastic derision on a caricature of
creationism, rejected pointed criticism of these practices, and then
confessed to having “no idea” of what the creationary paradigm is, yet
claimed to have at least read Morris and Gish. You also advanced
allegedly “evolutionary” hypotheses, yet without demonstrating
unequivocally how they either require evolutionary assumptions or how
they substantiate evolutionary theory.
>> I would greatly appreciate it if you could lay down the principles of Creation Science, since I appear to be ignorant of them, and give me some reason why I should consider using them in my own projects. <<
I have neither the time nor the qualifications nor the resources to
tutor you in the principles of creation science, but I can assure you
that there is plenty of informative material available. If you’re
serious, I would encourage you to look at CRSQ and CENTJ, though (like
I said) I’ll be happy to suggest a few books.
Kind Regards,
TW
[Mr. Wild declined to defend his claims or criticisms any further, having felt “insulted” by the accurate description of his use of a caricature of the creation paradigm and his confessed ignorance of the same. -TW]
