Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:04:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5564 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
Disagree-- but you won't like the answer.
> Creationism is not falsifiable,
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 Evoloutionary theory. The
theory is still falsifiable-- just not falsifiable by any means we now
posess. In theory, if we discovered how life began, and didn't dismiss that
discovery as invalid, it would falsify Creationism (provided that that
discovery pointed to some non-Creator method).
> does not make any predictions that can be tested,
True-- but neither does the Big Bang Theory, except insofar as we may
someday say "it might happen again!", to which Creationists could reply
"Creation might be destroyed and happen again!"
> fundamentally undermines empirical observation,
Again, I don't think it's Creationism's fault, per se, but some of its
followers who insist on dismissing potential data. IE *strict* creationists
(who, for example, INSIST that the Earth was created in *precicely* 144
hours, etc), will ignore/dismiss radioactive carbon dating because it would
otherwise falsify their theory. And as far as general Creationism is
concerned, you're right, there's no existing empirical data to support the
theory. But the important part is there *could* be. It's just not too darn
likely to show up (IMHO).
> and is not repeatable in any meaningful sense.
Ditto Big Bang again.
> 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?
You spend a lot of time criticizing Creationism's followers rather than
Creationism itself, which I think is a weakness in your (Dave!'s) debate
style. Faults in a theory's proponents don't reflect on the theory-- and
showing fault with them only serves to create unnecessary tension for your
debates, I think...
> Secondly, it's not the responsibility of science to "disprove"
> Creationism;
Agree 100%. It's up to neither Evolutionists nor Creationists to disprove
the opposing side; though they may wish to engage in such endeavors to
further their own faith in their decisions or to attempt to help others
understand better.
> Creationists are the rogue theorists opposing conventional
> understanding and explanation, so the burden is on them to prove their
> theory.
Disagree. They're under no pressure to prove their theory-- they're only
under pressure (I think) to accomidate empirical evidence by either
abandoning or altering their theory.
> 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.
Eh, I think that's the point at which you personally won't accept a motion
to "agree to disagree". You'll take such a statement as "I won" rather than
"Here's the fundamental difference between our two positions", which is
(IMHO) more accurate and less likely to cause offense and flame-fests...
> 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).
I'm not sure I followed this point as a reason why Creationism isn't a valid
scientific theory, except perhaps insofar as you're implying that a theory's
supporters determine the strength of that theory, which is, of course, not a
correct assumption.
> 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.
Agree-- See the rest of my previous post for my problem with that. I think
it's generally understood that "Creationism"=="Biblical Creationism", which
is wrong. If you want to teach Creationism, sure, go knock yourself out. But
don't teach Biblical Creationism without touching on other Creation
stories-- and be sure to treat each potential theory as valid-- and be sure
to teach Evolution equally.
> 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.
Oh, I fully understand your adamant behavior. But just because I understand
it doesn't mean I support it :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Actually, no it's not. At least, not Christian Creationism, which is really what we're talking about. The presence of an omnipotent being by definition eliminates all falsifiability or empirical verification--two necessary criteria for a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
