Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:35:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5765 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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? 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 from each other, and if tracked back to their point
of origin do they all meet? Some questions are not answered by the model,
and some need more information to be resolved (is the universe open or
closed, for example), but that doesn't mean predictions aren't made.
>
> > 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).
It is currently not supportable by the evidence in hand, so it has no
scientific standing. Merely coming up with a theory is not a claim to it
being scientific in nature.
>
> > and is not repeatable in any meaningful sense.
>
> Ditto Big Bang again.
The Big Bang may not be repeatable by definition (infinite expansion). That
does not rule out that observations are consistent with the theory.
>
> > 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...
What is the agenda of creationists? It's a valid question. They aren't
following scientific principles - indeed, they don't seem to understand them
and often willfully ignore them (See David K.'s explanation that Gravity is
a Law (nope, theory) and Evolution is a mere Theory, and therfore somehow
not scientific. All he shows is that he (and virtually every creationist)
have a profound misunderstanding of what science is (it has been covered
here before how and why theory is fundamental to the scientific process, so
I will not go over that again).
>
> > 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.
If they wish to introduce it into science texts, then they are under
indisputable pressure to prove their theory. Don't confuse the process with
the end result.
>
> > 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...
Agreeing to disagree doesn't have a darn thing to do with science. We've
already have had the "relying on the senses" debate, and they are part and
parcel of the scientific process (I may rely on my senses, but the other 100
guys producing the same results and observations didn't depend on *my*
senses, and many tests literally try to remove the human senses from the
equation). Dave is correct that the argument is like a petulant child
refusing to yield the point and looking for any escape to defend the ego.
>
> > 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.
Basically, in conflicts with religion, science is batting a thousand (never
lost, to those who don't understand baseball terminology). It would appear
that there is something about religion that is inadequate to explaining the
physical world around us. That conculsion is consistent with the results.
>
> > 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.
Yggdrasil! The gods were a *secondary* creation.
Bruce
"Valhalla, I am coming"
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I think you reversed the prediction with the evidence. The evidence was (IIRC) that galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the *conclusion* was that the Big Bang happened. There is no "Therefore, BECAUSE the Big Bang happened, X". (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
