Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

[questor]

We have no way of knowing what the original Bible really said. It was written over 2000 years ago by superstitious, ignorant people and has been translated several times, words redefined ,and explained out of context. I see no way to make scientific sense of its stories. On the other hand, all religions seem to have overlapping themes attempting to explain how we came to be.
However, evolution doesn't seem to answer many questions such as ; when man evolved into the Neanderthal, suddenly appeared modern man around
40,000 years ago. Where had he been hiding until that time? The Neanderthal
has a difference in genetic code from the Cro Magnon.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Shubee

I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

For those of you who want to know, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics basically boils down to the proposition that Physics should be dealt with entirely with abstract Mathematics, which is somewhat parallel to the division that has grown within the Physics community between Theoretical and Applied/Experimental Physicists.

As a result, Hydro's statement that:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct.

is certainly relevant, but unfortunately does not at all make the problem with Shubee's first postulate go away.

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" because the decrease in frequency with different layers must have an explanation), uplifting of mountains that maintain the layers (in spite of the fact that the Bible claims no earthquakes or other major deformations of land at the same time as the great flood), and morphological progression evidenced in the layers (which are not explained by various "density of bones" theories common among Creationists), as well as many others.

In order to resolve these issues, a simple incredible stroke of luck that makes the great-flood a *possible* explanation is not enough, it requires the violation of known physical laws. These are not issues of improbability, but rather mathematical models providing clear contradictions that even Hilbert would agree with!

To put it more clearly, we're not even talking about a tornado in a junkyard, we're talking about say, gravity disappearing instantaneously, and then reappearing.

This would require a call to divine intervention, and thus make it by definition outside the realm of science.

Until you guys address this, I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere here.

Just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass,
Buffy

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the "irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis."

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

Originally Posted by Buffy

To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article: Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.

Note that the article states: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.

As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."

Quantum indeterminancy is only a related concept. And quantum theory does make creationism possible. Physicists already admit that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence.

YouTube - Roger Penrose - Cyclic Universe Model

Originally Posted by Buffy

"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."

It's not astoundingly improbable. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. I think it's highly likely that there is no clear and indisputable fact that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.

Originally Posted by Buffy

But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:

If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" ...),

I learned the answer to that in a college intro course covering earth science and astronomy. The teacher was an avowed atheist. He explained that carbon-14 age has to be calibrated because the difference between carbon-14 age and tree-ring age increases as you go back in time. The comparison was shown graphically to the class in a slide presentation. Interestingly enough, there was less and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere as you go back in time. I understood the implications mathematically. Projecting carbon-14 availability from the known rapidly descending curve against tree-ring age implies that a carbon-14 test for anything beyond 20,000 years ago would appear virtually infinitely old. Accurate carbon-14 age determination is only as good as the oldest trees on earth if you make the usual adjustments. Anything beyond that limit is a guess.

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.

I don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

Shubee

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Look at it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100 zeros.

A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

Shubee

Look at it this way:
Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/100,000 for some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year life-creating process is 10^1 times greater. Would you really count that as a great win for the theory of evolution?

[Galapagos]

To anyone who hasn't seen this yet, here is a list of specific creationist claims, and refutations of them:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Some of the refuted claims have been made/mentioned in this thread. It might save everyone time to read and review before getting into any crazy arguments.

Originally Posted by Shubee

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

To be clear, you're saying you believe that some religious MD who runs his own website has therein provided sufficient refutation of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed, published evidence spanning the fields of geology, paleontology, and genetics(to name a few).
You have to understand that this is an incredibly extraordinary claim to make. Especially given that the author of the website supports many fringe theories such as the religious pseudoscience of Michael Behe, which has been (almost unanimously) rejected by the science community and legal system as such.

Also of interest, 29+ evidences for macroevolution(heavy citation here):
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?

My problem with the "scientific creationism" idea less to do with the probabilities of the Red Sea parting as it does with the Red Sea parting on command. It's bad enough that the universe will not exist long enough for this to have happened at random but for it to have happened at the precise moment the Israelites needed it to is many order of magnitude less probable. Then of course there are many other problems with the veracity of the Bible. One real biggie is the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. the middle east is not that big, in 40 years they could have wondered to South America, given the means they could have wondered to Mars in 40 years (exaggeration guys) I remember being around twelve years old and wondering just how stupid someone would have to be to wander for 40 years in such a small place. The bible is full of this stuff so why should we even try to "prove" one small part of what is obviously a work of literature meant to be a moral guide line and not a true history of Life on Earth much less the universe.

[Moontanman]

The Fossil Record

Reads like an "eye dee ten tea" problem to me.

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

To be clear, you're saying you believe that some religious MD who runs his own website has therein provided sufficient refutation of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed, published evidence spanning the fields of geology, paleontology, and genetics(to name a few).

You're not even close to grasping my meaning. Buffy understood my intent almost perfectly. I'm asking a question:

Suppose we take the view that quantum physics is science. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory?

Originally Posted by Galapagos

You have to understand that this is an incredibly extraordinary claim to make. Especially given that the author of the website supports many fringe theories such as the religious pseudoscience of Michael Behe, which has been (almost unanimously) rejected by the science community and legal system as such.

I have very little respect for Michael Behe as a defender of creationism. My purpose in citing The Fossil Record was to present a visual representation of my third postulate:

As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.

Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of The Fossil Record.

These statements were meant to convey the idea that however fantastically improbable quantum creationism may be when I adjoin to standard quantum physics my second and third postulate, I really do believe that my three-pronged axiomatized system is consistent and therefore meets the definition of science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Please understand that I'm not trying to prove quantum creationism true. I'm only trying to prove that quantum creationism is a logically consistent science. Just think of it as a word game that mathematicians like to play.

Originally Posted by Buffy

For those of you who want to know, David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics basically boils down to the proposition that Physics should be dealt with entirely with abstract Mathematics,..

Correct. And you are probably aware that Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics has been summarized by the well-known attribution: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science.

The most widely accepted definition of science is the one I gave above: a process of theory (AKA explanation) being used to make predictions which are tested (AKA validated or falsified) by experiment.

Originally Posted by Shubee

I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics …

There is a critical flaw with this approach: Hilbert’s approach to math, and by extension, physical science, generally known as formalism, is based on the assumption that a formal mathematical system isomorphic to physical reality that is complete, consistent, and decidable, exists. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that this assumption is untrue, not only for a fully reality-describing formal system, but even for a simpler system with a finite alphabet and the usual arithmetic operations.

This is certainly not to say that formalism is ineffective or bad, but rather that it is not innately superior to less than fully mathematically formal processes, but rather is practically useful as a tool in less formal processes. Though you’d be had pressed to find a more ardent proponent of formalism than me, even I stop short of agreeing with Shubee’s preference for formalism over experimentally verified science.

Another problem with formalism, which I and everyone I’ve read or spoken to with practical experience with formalism acknowledge, is that it’s very difficult. If one insists on accepting and applying only formally proven propositions, one would be incapable of practically any application of knowledge. Even with modern computer resources and personal genius, the amount of time necessary to follow Hilbert’s program to a point where this were not the case would likely take more than a human lifetime, which is beyond the bounds of most humans’ patience.

Originally Posted by Shubee

…so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.

"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."

There are at least a couple of problem with this approach.

First, in a mathematically formal sense, there are not axioms, because they are not described in terms of an enumerated collection of terms (an alphabet) and operations within some formal system. This requirement is difficult to explain tersely – to understand it, if the reader does not already, I recommend reading chapter 14 of Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, and its supporting internal and external referenced.

Second, there is a well-know gap in the knowledge domain of quantum mechanics and disciplines such as biology, paleontology, and geology. Even using the best present approximation methods and computer resources, we are not able use rigorous quantum mechanical formalism to describe even a single living cell. While quantum mechanics has provided interesting intuitive speculations into at least neurology (eg: Penrose’s “physics of consciousness”), present-day techniques and resources appear far from able to support a practical theory of “quantum biology”, etc.

If a theory of “quantum Darwinian evolutionary biology” in presently unfeasible, so is a theory of “quantum creationism”.