Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:30:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5718 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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". That I know of. Regardless, even if there were,
pretend there weren't for a minute-- would it still be scientific? I'd hope so.
> 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.
Oh, the point was that Creationism *IS* falsifiable. CreationISTS, however,
don't always hold it in such a way. Anyway, as for evidence in hand, sure,
there's evidence, we're here, aren't we? The Bible says it's true, doesn't
it? And don't myths often have basis in fact? 66% or so of humans are
Christian, does that help? Now, of course, these are flimsy pieces of
evidence in comparison to Evolutionary theory... And Creationism by its very
nature isn't very capable of having evidence to support it-- but I'm not
sure that makes it non-scientific.
> 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 [...snip...]
Well, certainly I agree that we can discuss the Creationists themselves if
we want to... but I don't think it's really the issue at hand, unless you
want to support the idea that it's ok to be condescending to them.
> > 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.
Eh, I don't think so. I think I'd argue that *IF* they want Creationism
taught in schools, they have to give equal attention to *ALL* Creationist
theories, since, if we're extending textbooks' arm to include things that
don't require evidenciary support, they need to equally include more than
just *1* such theory.
> 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.
Oh, in some cases it may be just that-- But by contrast saying that someone
*must* accept a particular interpretation of particular evidence is
similarly childish. They may be perfectly able to withdraw from debate, but
the end result is that neither you nor they "won".
> > 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.
As an aside-- Biblical Creationism was fun to learn in Biology class. It
took all of... maybe... 1 day to read and explain. Evolution took us a
couple weeks. Heck, if it'll make the parents happy, sure! Take as much time
as you need (read: 1 hour or so class time) to teach Creationism and as much
time as you need (read: 14+ hours) to teach Evolutionary Theory.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I cited one aspect of the Big Bang, that's all. You usually have some kind of evidence, contruct a model, and then see if you can find new evidence to confirm or deny the theory. I spoke from the standpoint of the model, not the actual linear (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
