Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:12:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6169 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > 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.
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 strict Biblical Creationism is falsifiable, though.
> 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.
Well, this is kinda non-sequeter, but they used to believe that Troy was a
mythical city, dreamed up by someone and recorded by Homer in the Iliad. And
they used to laugh at the guy who believed Troy was real. But lo and behold,
the myth of ancient texts proved to have its basis in fact. Does the Bible
have its basis in fact? Probably some, I'd have to say. The flood story?
Sure. Creationism? I guess maybe, though I doubt it.
> > 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."
What's wrong with letting them say that? If Creationists later want to
change their story and say that *yes* Evolution happened, but it was all
under God's hand, why not let them?
> > > 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!
Now, I dunno about microwave radiation, but wasn't the red shift evidence
*of* and not a prediction *of* the Big Bang? Regardless, even if there were
no useful information that came out of knowing that the Big Bang happened,
would it no longer be a scientific discovery?
> 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?
I dunno-- I think you're asking for it here :)
> 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.
I'll deferr to my other post on the matter on this one-- you should (and do
by your own admission, so you're ok) accept their theory as *viable*. The
only problem I tend to have though is the assumption that his *viable*
theory is somehow less *viable* than your own. I'd just instead argue that
my own theory had more evidence to support it and it was my "flavor" of
evidence. Basically the "agree to disagree" point.
> 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.
Eh, I think what a "high degree of reliability" is is again the issue. Just
like Creationists again and again criticize Evolutionary examples for not
having 'transition animals', when in point of fact, *ALL* animals are
transition animals. Basically, what's "good enough", and how do you make
that distinction?
> 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.
Ok-- I certainly agreed with the point. And it's rather an interesting
turnaround. Once religion supressed 'science', now it's the other way 'round.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Okay, but it's still not scientific. My claim that I just came back from the men's room is falsifiable, but that's not really scientific, either. (...) The flood story? the GLOBAL flood story? Not hardly. And anecdotal examples of failures of (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
