Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:17:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5109 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Spencer Rezkalla writes:
> > Scientific Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory
>
> I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you,
> what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be
> able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more
> evidence to support Evolutionary Theory.
Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one
by one;
First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that
it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is
not falsifiable, does not make any predictions that can be tested,
fundamentally undermines empirical observation, and is not repeatable in any
meaningful sense. For these reasons Creationism is *NOT* science, and that
in turn is the reason why Creationism, even under the fad pseudonym
"Intelligent Design," must not be taught in public schools as science.
Further, Creationism undertakes the falacies of special pleading, argument
from ignorance, argument from authority, false dichotomy, and ad hoc
reasoning (among others). Proponents of Creationism also spend most of
their rhetorical time taking pot-shots at evolution, rather than advancing
the study of their own theory; if Creationism were true, it would be true
regardless of evolution, so why do Creationists attempt to disprove the
opposing theory without making any effort to substantiate (to "prove," so to
speak) their own theory? In addition, Creationists as a rule attempt to
foster public support of their theory through political rather than
scientific means--why? And why, in the country with the worst scientific
education of any industrial nation, do we have to endure such efforts to
make our curricula even *less* scientifically accurate? For that matter, it
hardly seems a coincidence that we have such weak science education AND such
strong grassroots support for Creationism--not unlike the headhunters in old
movies who are amazed by the miracle of a Zippo.
Secondly, it's not the responsibility of science to "disprove"
Creationism; Creationists are the rogue theorists opposing conventional
understanding and explanation, so the burden is on them to prove their
theory. By "prove" in this case I mean that they must demonstrate their
theory to offer a more complete and correct explanation than evolution
offers of all relevant observations, while simultaneously requiring fewer
and smaller leaps of faith on matters not possible to verify empirically.
At some point in this forum somebody always says "well, your reliance on
your senses is a leap of faith, so it's the same thing as having faith in
God." That is, to me, an argument of last resort, and it amounts to
forfeiting the discussion.
Thirdly, the "attitude" in general--of rejecting faith-based reasoning
and, often, reviling those who employ such reasoning--is in many ways a
response to the acrimonious witch-hunt undertaken by fundamentalist groups
against the advancement of scientific understanding. History abounds with
examples: Galilleo, Bruno, Copernicus, Darwin, etc. etc. etc. In all of
these cases religious dogma worked aggressively to suppress empirical fact
for no other reason than because it contradicted the existing orthodoxy, and
in all of these cases empirical fact eventually won out (or will).
It frankly makes me terribly uneasy when I hear that Senator Santorum
is pushing a Creationist agenda, or that a local school is seriously
considering teaching Creationism as a science, or when Kansas adopts
anti-evolution legislation, or when Ohio seeks to establish Creationism in
public schools as an alternative on equal scientific footing with evolution.
Add to that the often myopic, xenophobic bigotry of proponents of
Creationism (here and elsewhere) and it seems to me no mystery that
opponents of Creationism become over-enthusiastic in their arguments.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Disagree-- but you won't like the answer. (...) Sure it is. It's just that *IF* most Creationists were presented with conflicting data, they'd choose to ignore or dismiss it. Just like you ignore or dismiss the Bible as evidence against (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it. I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you, what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more evidence to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
