Remster

Pseudonous

Right then, we're back on track. So:

1. Do you agree that the the creationist theory can be amended to fit any evidence that an evolutionist might come up with? (I'm led to believe that this is what actually happens. Note that being amended to fit any evidence isn't quite the same as already fitting any evidence, which is what would make the theory 'metaphysical'.)
2. If so, do you hold the view that the simpler evolutionist theory is more likely to be true than the more complex creationist theory?
3. If so, what evidence have you to support this view?

Remster

romansh

welcome back Rem
in short yes... in all three cases only photons of certain frequencies reach the back of the eye which stimulate rods and cones, which we interpret as 'red'.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Remster

Rom

Nope, that's still not it. I'm not talking about the physics of the three situations – the photons, rods and cones. I'm talking about how the situations seem. Do you agree that all three situations will seem the same to the person doing the seeing? Here are the three situations again:

• seeing a white vase in red light through clear lenses
• seeing a white vase in white light through red lenses
• seeing a red vase in white light through clear lenses

I'm assuming also that the person doing the seeing has no prior knowledge of what's red and what's white/clear.

Rem

pseudonous

Remster,

As a metaphysical explanation, yes I agree they can fit any observations about evolution to creationism.

Being a metaphysical argument there is often a lot of semantics involved, but not to over think things - yes, evolution is more likely to be true than creationism.

Simply put, evolution is a descriptive explanation. Creationism (as we are using it here) is a metaphysical explanation for this descriptive explanation. Hence, if the descriptive explanation is wrong than so is the metaphysical explanation is wrong.

Using your example, evolution says the fossil record will show simpler organisms existing before more complex organisms. Creationism also makes the same claim but states that a metaphysical entity is responsible for this. So, if we were to find any evidence to disprove evolution then this theory of creationism would also be disproved. There then is no way for this creationist theory to be true while evolution is false. Add to this that it is possible this metaphysical entity does not exist while the fossil record fits the evolution description and we can say that the metaphysical explanation is less likely to be true.

What I am saying here is this,

That the fossil record fits the description of evolution may be true of false.
That a metaphysical entity caused this may be true or false.

Both of these statements can simultaneously be true.
Both of these statements can simultaneously be false.
Evolution can be true and the metaphysical entity can be false.
But the metaphysical entity can't be true while evolution is false.

This is because evolution is a description and the proposed metaphysical entity is supposed to cover that description.

Of course, I'm not sure I would call this an actual metaphysical entity or metaphysical theory since it does effect the appearance of the world. But again, I was just trying to avoid semantics and answer your question in the most straight forward way I could.

__________________
"One is most dishonest to one's god: he is not allowed to sin." - Nietzsche

Remster

Pseudonous

I've inadvertently misled you.

The pseudo-scientific theory I'm asking you to consider isn't the theory that evolution occurred and a supremely powerful being caused it to occur (which would, as you neatly explain, involve tacking a metaphysical being on to a natural process). Rather, the pseudo-scientific theory I'm asking you to consider is the theory that immediate creation occurred and the creator planted the fossil record (and any other putative evidence for evolution) to mislead the unwary into believing in evolution.

So the questions of my last post still stand.

Remster

PS I don't want you to think I believe this nonsense – it's just an example I'm using to try and demonstrate an epistemological point.

romansh

OK the vase will look red in all three cases??

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

pseudonous

Remster

OK, I think I see the communication problem we are having. I don't believe scientific theories are anything more than descriptions of what we see.
In other words, it is not my belief that they say anything about an underlying metaphysical reality. The way I see your question, evolution just says how things happen and the metaphysical being says why things happen. So from my point of view, I don't really see a difference between the two pseudo-scientific theories; they are just alternative ways to state the same thing.

Perhaps I should clarify that this arises from the fact that the hypothetical pseudo-scientific theory makes the same predictions as the scientific theory. If they have all the same supporting evidence and make all the same predictions then on that basis alone they are merely alternative descriptions of the same thing. So you see, the pseudo-scientific theory really does contain the theory of evolution with a metaphysical being tacked on.

Another way to think about this - If a powerful being were to plant evidence for evolution to mislead us, that is to say evolution is just an illusion, then at what point does the illusion become so perfect that it can't really be called an illusion anymore. At what point does that illusion simply become an accurate description of your reality? To me, for something to be an illusion it has to be in someway misleading. If I can make predictions based on an explanation and in all cases arrive at the right conclusion then I can't call that explanation an illusion. So, as I see it, a powerful being that makes the word appear in every relevant way as if evolution occurred is the same as a powerful being that made evolution occur. Again, this is because evolution is merely a description; evolution only addresses things of appearance not the things in themselves.



No problem, I understand thought experiments.

Pseudonous

__________________
"One is most dishonest to one's god: he is not allowed to sin." - Nietzsche

Remster

Pseudonous

Let me check: so when scientists seem to be talking about events that occurred billions of years ago, in fact they're talking about events (our observations) that are occurring in the present or will occur in the future? (I'm familiar with this view from having studied phenomenalism, but I didn't realise it was held nowadays – by which I don't mean to disparage it.)

Remster

Remster

Rom

That'll do for the moment.

Now, see if you can envisage:

1. a hallucination of a white vase in red light seen through clear lenses
2. a hallucination of a white vase in white light seen through red lenses
3. a hallucination of a red vase in white light seen through clear lenses

If you can, do you agree that the three hallucinations would be identical to each other?

Rem

pseudonous

Remster,

I suppose. I'm not really sure what distinction your trying to draw. Perhaps I would say it: when scientists seem to be talking about events that occurred billions of years ago, in fact they're talking about a model based on observations.

Hopefully this clears up whatever question you had. I have never studied phenomenalism myself. To me, what I am saying is just a necessary part of empiricism not a philosophy in its own right.

__________________
"One is most dishonest to one's god: he is not allowed to sin." - Nietzsche