Subject:
|
Re: The Origins Debate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:46:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1845 times
|
| |
|
|
|In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
|
|>Let me restate my position this way:
|
|>The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
|>accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
|>completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
|>mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
|
| I would amend that by pointing out that mutations are *NOT* completely
|random, which implies that any single mutation is as likely as any other.
|Mutations arise as a result of environmental factors altering the organism's
|DNA structure as well as from errors in DNA replication.
| To assert that evolution is completely random is to buy into the
|hopelessly misguided analogy of the tornado-and-the-747.
|
|>The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
|>installed on Earth as described in Genesis I.
|
| This would be a good time to point out the two competing notions of theory:
|
| Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory:
|
|A scientific theory is empirical, falsifiable and possesses predictive
|power, e.g., the wave theory of light, the theory of evolution, and the Big
|Bang theory. Scientific theories are essentially concerned with discovering
|the mechanisms by which Nature functions.
|
|>Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense
|>experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. A scientific
|>theory must have some logical consequences we can test against Nature by
|>making predictions based on the theory.
|
| Creationist theory is a conceptual theory:
|
|>A conceptual theory is non-scientific and non-empirical. Some conceptual
|>theories are explanatory, e.g., metaphysical theories such as creationism,
|>materialism or dualism. Like all conceptual theories, creationism,
|>materialism and dualism cannot be empirically tested. They are not
|>falsifiable nor do they have any predictive value.
|
|these cites come from from the Skeptic's Dictionary at
|http://www.skepdic.com/theories.html
|which is, by the way, an absolutely excellent website, and I cannot
|recommend it strongly enough for anyone who aspires to any level of critical
|thought.
|
|So what we've got here is a conflict between types of theory, which are not
|equal in style or intent. I have no problem with your assertion that
|Creationism is a theory (just as I don't mind my coworker espousing his
|theory about why the Pirates lost (again) last night), but I flatly reject
|the idea that it is an empirical scientific theory with predictive value.
|
| Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| (...) Dave!: Here we come to the great defeater of your argument: The existence of Baseball is final and convincing proof that a Loving and Good God does in fact exist. I defy you to postulate any theoretical universe in which Baseball, in all its (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Let me restate my position this way: FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
