Reddit mentions of More Than a Theory: Revealing A Testable Model For Creation (Reasons to Believe)

>Your point about God creating a young earth that looks old is theological. Sure, it's possible, but it's not a scientific position (and it's theologically dubious as well, because God isn't a liar or a deceiver)
>My point was that young earth creationism is actually a falsifiable scientific theory. Unlike evolutionary theory.

Actually, you've done my work for me here; young earth creationism cannot be divorced from its theological origins. There is no way to reach it as a conclusion without theological assumptions or assertions; it cannot possibly be derived by empirical evidence as it stands, and that's before we talk about its lack of predictive power As such, it cannot be described as a scientific theory - and your assertion raises questions about whether or not you know what a scientific theory actually is.

Evolution, on the other hand, meets and exceeds the definition; it makes falsifiable predictions with accuracy, it is the most parsimonious explanation, it is supported by many independent strains of evidence, it's consistent with all the evidence we have to date and capable of predicting the results thereof, and it's been subjected to changes as new data has revealed issues and become more predicatively powerful as a result.

>You didn't address my point about the basis for finding that "it just makes sense" that this data points to common descent. This is not a scientific question at all, it is purely philosophical.

Perhaps I misunderstood; would you mind repeating or rephrasing said point?

If you're merely looking for why the evidence points to common descent, it's simply that common descent is the most parsimonious explanation and provides the most accurate predictions when coupled with what we know of evolution and its mechanisms.

>Epigenetics addresses point 1.

No, I'm afraid epigenetics is not a problem for evolution; heritable epigenetic factors generally take the form of modifications to DNA or the histones that carry it, affecting not the sequence but the expression. Not only is this not an issue to evolution, since differences in gene expression have long been part of the theory, but certain epigenetic factors may actually make organisms more evolvable.

>Irreducible complexity addresses point 3 (small changes are advantageous at the margins, but changes to systems are extremely problematic).

Nope; irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution either; irreducibly complex systems may arises thanks to the simplification of earlier, systems with additional supporting factors which were able to be removed for efficiency or by the repurposing of independently-useful systems or parts of systems. For a bit more detail, as well as an addressing of common creationist misconceptions and falsehoods, please watch this video. It's only ten minutes long, and well worth your time.

>http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf

And here's an explanation of why it doesn't say what you say it says.

>The fossil record addresses point 6, since it shows that small changes over time have not actually resulted in large-scale evolution.

How does it show that, exactly? As I recall, transitional fossils demonstrate rather well "large scale" evolution.

>Punctuated equilibrium has the serious problems that the earlier saltationist theories had: it defies what we know about genetics.

Oh really now? Tell me, what exactly does it defy? As a geneticist, I'm extremely interested to know.

>Dawkins in particular is very critical of their theory, and thinks the gaps are just gradual changes that didn't get picked up in the fossils.

Frankly there's no reason it can't be some of each - and debating between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium really doesn't help your case.

>Behe has several peer-reviewed articles.

Yes, just none that actually support ID. If I recall correctly, Behe confirmed this with his testimony in court. For more detail on why Behe is underwhelming, see here.

> cited the one above, and here is another one showing the problems of evolution producing large-scale change by iterations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/ .

Long refuted. Indeed, in the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones noted that "A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used."

If you go to the citations of said paper on pubmed, you'll find a couple of other papers that dispute and refute Behe's conclusions as well. But I figure that will do for now.

>I think I would be close to Hugh Ross' theory of old earth progressive creation. This seems to bets fit the evidence available from all disciplines.

Um...yeah, that's not a scientific theory.

> It acknowledges what we know from the social sciences and philosophy, that humans are of a different order of intelligence from animals, and therefore must have been specially created or purposely evolved with a created soul and spirit.

Right, there's two things wrong here. First of all, there is an increasing body of data demonstrating the similarities between other animals and humans; while I would agree that humans are more intelligent than most animals, you're making some pretty big leaps with awfully little supporting data.

Second and more importantly, the conclusion makes no sense whatsoever! Humans are smarter and therefore they have souls? Where do you even get that from? Do you have any evidence that "souls" exist in the first place? Intelligence is merely another trait; to say that having more of it suggests we have a soul is like thinking that gorillas have a "soul of strength" or that cheetahs carry a "soul of speed"; merely being good at something in no way suggests a supernatural origin for those abilities. It simply does not follow.

>It also acknowledges what we see in the fossils, which would contradict a reading of Genesis as referring to literal 24-hour days, ...

Yup; we agree on that

> ... and instead advocates the days as orders of creation (again fitting what we see in the social sciences and philosophy).

Well, except for the bit where we have no evidence to support "creation" at all, including from the social sciences and philosophy.

>It acknowledges what we observe in biology, namely natural selection on the body of genetic information present at creation, with possible minor modifications based on mutations (i.e. sickle-cell trait).

Yet fails to acknowledge the broader changes that can occur, or what will result from a buildup of minor traits.

---

However, setting aside those objections brings us to a bigger point: Hugh Ross is making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions, beginning with "there exists a god". His postulation is not parsimonious by any means.

---

>http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/0801014425

Oooh, that book! Sorry; not impressed; here's a brief summery as to why. I expect I could go into more detail at a need, but it's easy enough to say that it relies on unjustified religious rhetoric, gets wrong a great deal of its science, and generally straw mans "naturalistic" views.

1. Your point about God creating a young earth that looks old is theological. Sure, it's possible, but it's not a scientific position (and it's theologically dubious as well, because God isn't a liar or a deceiver)
   
2. My point was that young earth creationism is actually a falsifiable scientific theory. Unlike evolutionary theory.
   
3. You didn't address my point about the basis for finding that "it just makes sense" that this data points to common descent. This is not a scientific question at all, it is purely philosophical.
   
4. I think most of the examples you gave of ways to falsify evolutionary theory have actually been found. Epigenetics addresses point 1. Irreducible complexity addresses point 3 (small changes are advantageous at the margins, but changes to systems are extremely problematic).http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf. Point 5 is just axiomatic, and it would defy logic to refute it. The fossil record addresses point 6, since it shows that small changes over time have not actually resulted in large-scale evolution.
   
5. Punctuated equilibrium has the serious problems that the earlier saltationist theories had: it defies what we know about genetics. Dawkins in particular is very critical of their theory, and thinks the gaps are just gradual changes that didn't get picked up in the fossils.
   
6. Behe has several peer-reviewed articles. I cited the one above, and here is another one showing the problems of evolution producing large-scale change by iterations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/.
   
7. I think I would be close to Hugh Ross' theory of old earth progressive creation. This seems to bets fit the evidence available from all disciplines. It acknowledges what we know from the social sciences and philosophy, that humans are of a different order of intelligence from animals, and therefore must have been specially created or purposely evolved with a created soul and spirit. It also acknowledges what we see in the fossils, which would contradict a reading of Genesis as referring to literal 24-hour days, or day-ages, and instead advocates the days as orders of creation (again fitting what we see in the social sciences and philosophy). It acknowledges what we observe in biology, namely natural selection on the body of genetic information present at creation, with possible minor modifications based on mutations (i.e. sickle-cell trait).http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/0801014425

There's actually a book proposing creationism as a hypothesis with testable predictions. I haven't read it but it looks interesting http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/0801014425/ref=la_B001JSBHEU_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422729958&sr=1-8