The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[brennan]

And if there were to be a center, why would it be a rather insignificant little blue-green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun in an unfashionable backwater of the western spiral arm of the galaxy? *shrugs*

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

'Cause we live here. if there is any other intelligent life, let them come to us to challenge that claim!

 

[Ali Zaybak]

Doesn't have to be a theory for it to be an invalid scientific theory.. is all I'm saying.

"Invalid" is a qualifier of "scientific theory," true, but more importantly it is a judgment of its worth as a scientific theory. It is meaningless to say that an onion is a bad-tasting apple, because an onion is not even an apple to begin with. Another (slightly more complex) example, ripped from the pages of a favorite novel:
Take the statement: "All Athenians are mortal, and all the citizens of Pireaus are mortal, so all the citizens of Pireaus are Athenians."
This is an invalid logical argument (despite the fact that its conclusions are true). However, the intent of its creator is that it exist as a logical argument, as we can come to understand from the way it is phrased, the context in which it is put forth, etc.
Similarly with Creationism and ID: proponents of the theories have insisted that they have a place in the scientific discourse, and thus it must be assumed that they consider the theories to be scientific claims. However, in order to be a valid scientific claim, a statement must measure up to certain rigorous standards of the scientific community that have become de rigeur. Creationism, many attest, does not.
On a similar note, the noted 17th century political scientist Thomas Hobbes. (best known today for his "Leviathan") engaged in a series of arguments regarding geometry and natural philosophy with many of the leading academics of his day. Ad hominem attacks flew thick and fast (e.g.

"Due Correction for Mr. Hobbes; or Schoole Discipline, for not saying his Lessons right" and as Hobbes did replying with "Markes of the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church-Politicks, And Barbarismes of John Wallis Professor of Geometry and Doctor of Divinity."

http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/vitriolic.html). What was important however, is that Robert Hooke, after debating Hobbes for a while, recognized that Hobbes was not even willing to acknowledge the validity of the knowledge-acquisition framework employed by Hooke, namely, the fledgling Scientific Method. Seeing this obstacle to effective communication, Hook informed Hobbes that he could no longer continue the argument if Hobbes would not even acknowledge the ground rules of science. Unfortunately, Darwinists today do not have the luxury of ignoring the Creationst/ID forces who (even more unfortunately) have sway over certain factors in our government. As was said in the KOIII thread, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins have in the past refused to debate Creationists, and rightly so. To even admit Creationism into the scientific arena would be to validate the theory and give it credence as somehow scientific, which it is not.
Well, I guess the dead horse can't really complain about being beaten, can it? Apologies to anyone who got spattered with gobbets of ex-horse.

 

[ironduck]

'Cause we live here. if there is any other intelligent life, let them come to us to challenge that claim!

Well, they did. And wiped out the planet.

 

[Ali Zaybak]

As a kind of apology for that ghastly behemoth (see above), I'll post something frivolous yet pertinent:
http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3
Nothing like a bit of Python to brighten up everyone's day!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Welcome to CFC, by the way, Ali, you picked a good place to start.

The funny thing is that, in this, as in so much else, Python was right on the money, scientifically speaking.

 

[ironduck]

Welcome Quicksilver.

 

[brennan]

Thomas Hobbes. (best known today for his "Leviathan")

Hobbes is probably best known in fact for being a Tiger. Grrowl.

(you are right about not letting Creationist into the scientific arena btw)

 

[warpus]

That is what this debate is about, and you're rejecting a fairly fundamental law of logic saying that an object cannot simultaneously be A and not-A.

Edit: Let's put it in set theory form and see if that convinces you.

Consider the set S of scientific theories. Consider know the set I of elements of S that have the property "invalid". You're claiming that something can be a member of I without being a member of S.

Yeah, but by saying "this is an invalid scientific theory" I am not saying "this is a scientific theory, yet it is invalid".

The set of scientific theories = the set of valid scientific theories. The set of scientific theories does not contain any elemets that have the property "invalid".

 

[Ali Zaybak]

Many thanks Eran, ironduck. And, Brennan, I too am familiar with the feline Hobbes, being myself a devout Calvinist. Ironduck, I'm intrigued: who showed up and wiped out the planet?

 

[warpus]

"Invalid" is a qualifier of "scientific theory," true, but more importantly it is a judgment of its worth as a scientific theory. It is meaningless to say that an onion is a bad-tasting apple, because an onion is not even an apple to begin with.

Yeah, but you would be right in saying that "an apple is an invalid orange", much in the same way that "creationinm is an invalid scientific theory".

 

[ironduck]

Ironduck, I'm intrigued: who showed up and wiped out the planet?

Why, the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council, of course.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, but you would be right in saying that "an apple is an invalid orange", much in the same way that "creationinm is an invalid scientific theory".

Noone uses the term "invalid orange". You're inventing new usages to make your point.

Think of it like arguements. An invalid arguement is an arguement, just one that isn't logically or empiricaly correct.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yeah, but by saying "this is an invalid scientific theory" I am not saying "this is a scientific theory, yet it is invalid".

The set of scientific theories = the set of valid scientific theories. The set of scientific theories does not contain any elemets that have the property "invalid".

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

If something is an invalid scientific theory, it's a fortiori a scientific theory. This is elementary logic.


But this isn't getting anywhere; let's drop the subject. We're kinda threadjacking.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

"Invalid orange" is a great term. I think I will start using it . . .

 

[ironduck]

As in, 'oh for crying out loud, don't be such an invalid orange!'?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, exactly.

But to get a little more back on topic, I would agree that since Creationism is in no way a theory, it can't be an invalid scientific theory. I would say that phrenology could be argued to be an invalid theory - it made testable claims which were shown to be false - but Creationism doesn't even do that.

 

[Ali Zaybak]

An invalid orange could be a citrus fruit with a disease. Alternatively, it could be an archaic grammatical form indicating a sick person who has turned a shade of orange. Jaundice, maybe.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I think some people have attempted to make Creationism into a scientifically acceptable system (pre-Darwinian naturalists, mostly) it's just that their tests failed. For example the Palean version of Creationism fell flat on its face with Darwin's demonstration of the Jury-rigged nature of life.

Of course, weather such worldviews were truely scientific is debateable.

That's why I didn't make TLC's larger claim, however I can see a fair arguement for it.

 

[brennan]

Damnedif i'm going to go back and look, but wasn't the first use a clumsy way of saying creationism was invalid (as a) scientific theory, ie; not a scientific theory at all valid or otherwise.

Perhaps creationism is an invalid orange?