Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:49:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
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 scientific theory.
> 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 Evolutionary theory.
Just like I dismiss or ignore Beowulf as an automotive repair handbook--it's
simply not relevant to the issue. That is, not in any independently
verifiable way. The Bible only has value if God exists, and the only
"evidence" we have for His existence (despite what Josh MacDowell claims) is
the Bible (ie: personal testimony--absolutely the weakest form of evidence.)
> The theory is still falsifiable-- just not falsifiable by any means we now
> possess.
Or can possess, unless we somehow become infinite, or unless the infinite
being in question deigns to reveal himself in incontrovertible fashion,
which to date He has not done.
> 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).
But *every* conceivable explanation allows the existence of an omnipotent
creator, simply because we have no way to exclude that being. Even if we
found some non-creator method, like (oh, I don't know) The Big Bang, people
would still say "yeah, but God started it."
> > 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!"
What?!? The Big Bang theory makes a whole bunch of predictions, such as the
presence of background microwave radiation and the red shift of moving
galaxies, to name just two. Both of these have been verified!
> > 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.
I could have been clearer. "Creationism" doesn't undermine observation, but
the existence of an infinite omnipotent being certainly would do so. That's
what I was trying to say.
> > and is not repeatable in any meaningful sense.
>
> Ditto Big Bang again.
But, again, the evidence *predicted* by Big Bang theory has been repeatedly
observed, such as the abundance of primordial elements and the general
uniformity of the universe's structure.
> 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...
Well, since Creationism can't be--even in principle--disproven, what kind
of idiot would I have to be to waste my time trying to disprove it? On the
other hand, the arguments of Creationists can readily be shown to be faulty,
so that's the course I take. What you identify as a weakness is, I believe,
simply a consistent approach to a consistent problem; namely, the
masquerading of faulty logic in the guise of informed debate.
As to fault's in a theory's proponents--I agree 100% that they're
irrelevant to the argument itself. But you're mischaracterizing me; if Joe
Creationist is a butthead, I'll still accept his argument if it's sound.
> [Creationists are] under no pressure to prove their theory-- they're only
> under pressure (I think) to accomadate empirical evidence by either
> abandoning or altering their theory.
That's what it means to prove something, in science. And if Creationists
want their theory to be taught in public schools as science, then they
ABSOLUTELY MUST prove it to a high degree of reliability, which they haven't
done.
> > 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.
I was addressing the other issue of the prior post--that Creationists are
somehow victims of organized derision based on their beliefs. The point of
the section above is to address that perception. But you make a good
point--I shouldn't have used "thirdly" as a lead-in, since it explicitly
ties the paragraph to those preceding it. Remove "thirdly" and I still
stand by the paragraph.
As far as my dismissal of arguments re: "it's all faith," you did right to
call me on it, since I should have clarified. Goodness knows there have
been whole schools of philosophy devoted to that very question, but I don't
see how they can ever be resolved, and their intersection with empirical
reality has always seemed limited at best. Arguments on that subject are
certainly not stupid or impossible, but they are, to me, a very different
subject from the one at hand (or at least, the resolution would be so
difficult that our great-grandchildren would be in their dotage before we
got anywhere with it).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
