Sorry, silly typo: "Having arrived at a new set of premises through ABduction", of course...

A creation scientist is an imaginary creature like the unicorn. There is no evidence for the scientific validity of the creation story in Genesis. Those who call themselves creation scientists are creationists but not scientists.

The Jesuits who man the Vatican Observatory are religious scientists, but that is a different matter.

i note that god...saying
let there be light..has a spontaneous 'beginning'..as much as 'the big-bang*..both initiating events..have a cause..

whether it be religions principle cause..[god]..via apostles
or the brane's THEORY..of science..that accord's..[postulates?]
the theory that two opposite dimension's..collided..[these naturally accord with heaven/hell]

add in the eve of religion..with the 3eve's[5?]..of science;outof africa THESIS..

plus that god ,made plants first..
or science accords protoplasmic slime..as the first creation of the pre-egsisatant 'deep..'revealed in the light..

versus the vacuum of pre bang nuthingness of science theory..that science accords/allows the spontaneous formation plus immediate collapse..of energy pure form's..

add in peers and secret knowing[gnosis]..peer revieuw
plenty full funding..special rites/ritual doctrinal; process science rigor..variation within the known written certainties..

and more variation
at the workplace individual..personal level..

plus blind faith..of the hangers on
not even attempting to get educated..in the big picture..let alone minutia.

im noting much similarity.
so walk the middle path..trusting both..only a little
yet allowed to use the facts to make my own deductions..however abbe rant those with faith alone may regard me to be..

its all just opinion..till blind faith
in science or religion kills you.

i realize the pdf is a big read
but NEED feedback on the math*
[that begins around page 70]

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf

Hi Antiseptic

>>thanks for helping me to think about this<<

I feel the same. A PhD students of mine wanted to talk to me about a (mathematical) problem he encountered while writing up his thesis. He talked for half an hour, scribbled on my whiteboard and finished with a “thank you, now it is all clear” without me having opened my mouth during his exposition. I acted as a catalyst, a function that e.g. his grandmother could not have fulfilled, since his subconscious would not allow it: he would not have believed she could understand his exposition although it was actually he who needed to understand himself.

I am afraid I am not familiar with research methods, in particular grounded theory, in social sciences or even data collection and evaluation in natural sciences. Theories in physics are built on experimental data that are INDUCTIVELY extended to describe a whole family of phenomena and rationally organized to provide a “best possible explanation” of them (ABDUCTION) that is then formulated as a logically consistent system, where mathematics plays an important role (and DEDUCTION comes into play). As for Kuhn’s paradigms, they are places of discontinuity (or leaps) in the above description of theory, when the new collection of experimental facts (and the phenomena they refer to) does not fit the previously obtained “best explanation” and a new, more encompassing “best explanation” has to be found and organized into a coherent system.

Well, this is my off-the-cuff description of how I see things. I am not sure what role grounded theory or “non-linearity” (obviously not the same thing as non-linearity of equations ) plays here.

You are certainly right, that there was a progress from Genesis to modern cosmology and evolution as one part of the process when religion (in our Abrahamic context) was ceasing to function as ersatz-science and modern science was coming into existence. If one wants, one can see an interplay of deduction, induction and abduction in this process.

Dear david f,

You are right, except that Antiseptic mentions creation theology, not creation science.

Dear George,

You wrote: Dear david f,

You are right, except that Antiseptic mentions creation theology, not creation science.

Dear George,

I was not referring to Antiseptic. I was referring to the following by OUG:

<<The reason.there is a vast gulf..between evolutionists and creation scientists...has nothing to do with scientific discovery..and has everything to do with initial assumptions.

I gather that Creation Theology makes the New Testament message a new creation. IMHO that gives a particular religious viewpoint an undeserved grandiosity.

However, I do believe that if there is a God he/she/it has little or nothing to do with either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament.

quote..<<..I acted as a catalyst,..a function that e.g. his grandmother could not have fulfilled,>>

you are correct..it was your thought..plus his thought
that strengthened,..the linkage to spirit..who thus was able to 'join-in'

we commonly fail to note the importance of spirit
despite words like 'in-spired'..or in-spi-ration'..all great invention is inspired..by spirit..[the mindmeld linking us to the so called dead

*needing only two minds..with one goal
[or one..seeing opposing side's without bias]
ie communication is established by our mind set..

[spirit 'sees' our minds thought forms
as energy that is simpatico energy..;which in spirit feeds like energies.. like attracts like]

i put it..that vile thinking attracts vile input[demons if you will
and good energy repels the vile..and attracts the light bearing serving to the good]

it true-ly is a truism..
that more [of the same]..will be given*
as we think [emmit]..so will we receive

curiously..<<since his subconscious would not allow it:>>

is a key point

yet he is as we are..<<he would not have believed...she could understand his exposition>>

she couldn't have ..nomeeting of minds..*LIKE MINDS
able to form an energy form..recognizable to the needed 3 rd party

again this is true..<<although it was actually he who needed to understand himself.>>he needed..in this case you..to act as bridge betwixt/between..you and your guides

i will call this opinion
but am sure its towards the reality..[we do all have 'conscious/unconscious'....from then only need the bias..

or flow of con-science..or force of will
if we got the intensity/passion/singular focus[much like prayer does]

passion..open minds
they are the way..[ta0]