Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

[Jose Fly]

You use the term "utilized", does one utilize their beliefs about reality when studying reality? of course we do.

I disagree. An atheist scientist does not utilize their non-belief in gods when doing science, and I've seen no examples of creationists utilizing belief in gods when doing science either.

I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.

I've pointed out before (but unless you've studied physics you'd likely not grasp this) that just because an experiment yields the same outcome when repeated does not serve as proof that it will always do so, this is why physics is essential in my opinion, to attain a deep understanding of science.

That's all very off-topic. If you want to debate whether the scientific method is a belief, start another thread.

Well you do keep choosing new words once you realize that the prior word works against you! Initially you used "impact" then you moved the goalposts and used "contribute" and then you moved them again and used "based on" and now you move the goal posts again and use "utilize", very specious Mr. Fly, very specious.

Again, in science those are all basically the same thing.

So, were back to "impact" now, very well!

Your dodge of the question is noted.

But the old argument "God created an orderly, rationally intelligible universe" had an impact (it led to and drove the scientific revolution) there aren't many historians of science Mr. Fly that would disagree with this either.

You're just repeating yourself. "Inspired by" is not the same thing as "utilized" (see previous example of a scientist who is inspired by impressing women, but does not utilize impressing women in his work).

I think we've confirmed the point of the OP....creationists do not have any new arguments, nor do they seem interested in coming up with any.

That leads me wonder....what do you think those old arguments have accomplished?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #4]

That's all fine and dandy, but dare I say a trifle naïve. If you're going to invoke naturalism as an explanation then that's fine, if you are free to assume naturalism without explaining it then I am free to assume supernaturalism on the same basis.

Which is just what I said in my post ("and since we don't know the full mechanism yet, both a purely natural explanation and a god being of some sort can be speculated."). Your phrasing then must be just as naive as you think mine was.

Now you just wrote "It could have come about completely naturally" is that a scientific claim? can you support that with evidence? No, it isn't science at all it is belief, faith not science.

You seem to have missed the word "could" in that sentence, which clearly shows it wasn't a claim of any kind ... just stating it as a possibility. When a problem has yet to be solved then hypotheses can be put forth to try and explain it. This is how science works.

You did that for me, without inspiration there can be no science.

And no amount of inspiration, or belief in gods, can make the result right or wrong. The results are independent of what inspired an idea or experiment. You seem to think these are connected somehow.

But some creationists spouting nonsense does not invalidate creationism any more than some naturalists spouting nonsense invalidates naturalism.

And who said otherwise? The point was about creationism in science, and what it has contributed (which is nothing). If you believe Russell Humphreys planetary magnetic field "theory" go right ahead (ESG here defends it vigorously). That is the kind of pseudoscience creationism has contributed, and it is rightfully ignored by the scientific community worldwide because it is nonsense.

[Inquirer]

You use the term "utilized", does one utilize their beliefs about reality when studying reality? of course we do.

I disagree. An atheist scientist does not utilize their non-belief in gods when doing science, and I've seen no examples of creationists utilizing belief in gods when doing science either.

Do you believe that laws of nature actually exist when you do calculations relating to energy, temperature and so on? Yes you do, therefore you are basing your conclusions on those beliefs.

I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.

I've pointed out before (but unless you've studied physics you'd likely not grasp this) that just because an experiment yields the same outcome when repeated does not serve as proof that it will always do so, this is why physics is essential in my opinion, to attain a deep understanding of science.

That's all very off-topic. If you want to debate whether the scientific method is a belief, start another thread.

Not at all, highlighting your illogical reasoning when discussing a topic is never off topic.

Well you do keep choosing new words once you realize that the prior word works against you! Initially you used "impact" then you moved the goalposts and used "contribute" and then you moved them again and used "based on" and now you move the goal posts again and use "utilize", very specious Mr. Fly, very specious.

Again, in science those are all basically the same thing.

So why use one word when four will do, is that what they taught you in science class?

So, were back to "impact" now, very well!

Your dodge of the question is noted.

Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence:

But the old argument "God created an orderly, rationally intelligible universe" had an impact (it led to and drove the scientific revolution) there aren't many historians of science Mr. Fly that would disagree with this either.

You're just repeating yourself. "Inspired by" is not the same thing as "utilized" (see previous example of a scientist who is inspired by impressing women, but does not utilize impressing women in his work).

Well "utilize" carries a different meaning to "impact" but clearly you don't care what words means, you just make it up as you go.

I think we've confirmed the point of the OP....creationists do not have any new arguments, nor do they seem interested in coming up with any.

That leads me wonder....what do you think those old arguments have accomplished?

We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine and still stands unrefuted, of course you'll likely make up a definition for "old" and "argument" things are so much easier for you when you do that aren't they.

[Jose Fly]

Do you believe that laws of nature actually exist when you do calculations relating to energy, temperature and so on? Yes you do, therefore you are basing your conclusions on those beliefs.

Sometimes I forget that you're a solipsist. Yes, non-solipsist scientists base their work on the belief that reality actually exists.

So why use one word when four will do, is that what they taught you in science class?

I'm sorry that the concept of synonyms baffles you so.

Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence

This is the question you dodged (by complaining about my use of synonyms): "If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?"

We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine

"Does just fine" for what?

[Inquirer]

Do you believe that laws of nature actually exist when you do calculations relating to energy, temperature and so on? Yes you do, therefore you are basing your conclusions on those beliefs.

Sometimes I forget that you're a solipsist. Yes, non-solipsist scientists base their work on the belief that reality actually exists.

I'm not a solipsist, it is that that you forgot.

I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.

Reality exists and in quantum physics there are models of that reality, different models, different interpretations, this is unrelated to solipsism.

Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.

So why use one word when four will do, is that what they taught you in science class?

I'm sorry that the concept of synonyms baffles you so.

Why you'd choose to use four words that have identical meaning is what baffles me, but I don't expect an answer.

Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence

This is the question you dodged (by complaining about my use of synonyms): "If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?"

We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine

"Does just fine" for what?

For explaining what scientism cannot explain.

[Jose Fly]

I'm not a solipsist

Yeah you are...or at least you invoke it at your convenience.

I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.

So sticking to the point of this thread, those models have been an important and essential component of some scientific advancements. Creationism OTOH....hasn't.

Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.

I'm content to allow scientists determine those sorts of things for themselves.

For explaining what scientism cannot explain.

Such as?

[Inquirer]

I'm not a solipsist

Yeah you are...or at least you invoke it at your convenience.

I'm not a solipsist.

I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.

So sticking to the point of this thread, those models have been an important and essential component of some scientific advancements. Creationism OTOH....hasn't.

Right, so do you believe models of reality are real or just models? or like so many here do you conflate reality with models of reality?

Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.

I'm content to allow scientists determine those sorts of things for themselves.

Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?

For explaining what scientism cannot explain.

Such as?

Such as why is the universe rationally intelligible? why does science work at all?

[Jose Fly]

Right, so do you believe models of reality are real or just models? or like so many here do you conflate reality with models of reality?

Models approximate reality, with some being closer to it than others.

Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?

It depends on the subject.

Such as why is the universe rationally intelligible? why does science work at all?

And creationism's answers to those questions are........?

[Inquirer]

Right, so do you believe models of reality are real or just models? or like so many here do you conflate reality with models of reality?

Models approximate reality, with some being closer to it than others.

You really do need to understand that the different interpretations of quantum physics are equally close, they use the same mathematics, exactly the same yet they are fundamentally different in the nature of reality they describe.

I get the impression you are uncomfortable with the question though and that's OK I would be too if I held the simplistic views about science that you do, in fact I once did.

Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?

It depends on the subject.

The subject is reality and models of reality, isn't that what were just talking about?

Such as why is the universe rationally intelligible? why does science work at all?

And creationism's answers to those questions are........?

Things were created this way by a mind.

[Jose Fly]

You really do need to understand that the different interpretations of quantum physics are equally close, they use the same mathematics, exactly the same yet they are fundamentally different in the nature of reality they describe.

I get the impression you are uncomfortable with the question though and that's OK I would be too if I held the simplistic views about science that you do, in fact I once did.

You're not really making much sense here, especially in the context of the topic of this thread. AFAICT, no one is disputing that there are different interpretations in quantum physics.

The subject is reality and models of reality, isn't that what were just talking about?

Okay, and to stay in on-topic, are there any creationist models of reality?

Things were created this way by a mind.

What kind of "mind"?