For the last time, I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE!
All right, let's try to make this the last time:
John Rylander says:
<<I think this is the crux of the matter. You avoided my most important =
question, saying it was inappropriate: Can creation science of some form =
offer better predictions than evolutionary theory of some sort?>>
What you originally asked me, though, was phrased differently:
<<Jim, let me ask you this: do you think any current creationistic =
theories that involve miraculous divine intervention as a part of the =
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions concerning currently =
unknown phenomena?>>
The key phrase here was "currently unknown phenomena." This is the syntax of
causal science. What you ask now is the more generic "predictions." This term
means something different in historical science, in my view.
Let me use an example. Suppose I want to find out why a certain population is
more susceptible to a certain disease than another. I can design an observable
operation, or experiment, which compares blood cells, let's say. I can form a
hypothesis and test it this way. Right? This is the scientific method. I do a
range of experiments. I can start to make predictions about the laws, or
causality, at work in the here and now. My purpose? To find out what is
working, and why, so I can intervene and make people healthier.
Now let's switch to another question. Did life develop from common ancestors
via descent & modification? I'm looking for a window to the past. Due to the
extreme time factor invovled, it's not something I'm able to observe through
experimentation. [I can conduct experiments in a lab wherein I combine
chemicals and heat and see if they get together and dance. But that will only
explain what I can do NOW, not what really HAPPENED. However, it can make
judgments about past events more reasonable, depending on the outcome].
Well, in this case, where we're trying to find out WHAT HAPPENED (historical
science), and fortunately the past has left us a record of sorts. Now, you can
make a "prediction" here about what you'll find: say, transitional forms. You
go looking, and if you find them, you've got evidence for a certain thesis. If
you don't, you have a problem.
Those who invoke a designer can make similar predictions regarding the fossil
record. They might predict a dearth of transitions. They go looking, and find
that very thing. It seems to me there is nothing to preclude them from drawing
inferences from that record, as their naturalistic brothers have.
What about on the causal side? Here, the design proponent might also make
predictions subject to experimental falsification. They might predict that, on
the chemical level, complex information and irreducibly complex bio-chemical
systems will never arise through physical processes. All one needs to do is
conduct an experiment where this happens, and the thesis will be falsified.
I hope this helps both you and Tom Moore. If not, I'll chalk it up to my
inability to express myself more clearly.
Jim