Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:14:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5521 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian
> interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an
> infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is
> also, by the way, why studies into the purported medical benefits of prayer
> are doomed to be non-scientific.
> If we're simply taking about "creator entity X" (and up till now I haven't
> been), then we enter an arena in which some theories remain falsifiable, but
> it's still necessary to establish the nature of the creator entity so that
> we can address how that entity's existence messes up the observations.
I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that
CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for
example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes
Biblical Creationism, because it says it happened the other way 'round.
Heck, it's already been "disproven" on the basis of time frame (the
interpretation of day-lengths). It's just that one can bend the written word
to fit the data. Hence, yes, SOME Creationist theories aren't falsifiable
because they're too loose. Some are. And my take on Biblical Creationism is
that it's falsifiable. But again, some people's take on Biblical Creationism
is flexible enough so as to withstand any falsifying evidence.
> > And, since the theory
> > is put forth as dogma, it is the antithesis of a scientific theory.
I'll agree with the statement, though I think it can be a bit misleading.
Essentially (if I take this right) it implies that theories 'presented'
without proof (IE whose *origin* is without evidence) are against the
scientific method which is instead to find evidence which *suggests* a
hypothesis (reversed). However, I think I'll interject that *not*
*necessarily* are all dogmatic theories necessarily unscientific. One can
always attempt to apply scientific method to the theory, in which case the
theory *can* 'become' scientific. However, it looses a degree of religious
impact by changing scope from being faith-based to science-based.
> Another necessary distinction is that a theory may be falsifiable, but if
> it's also *false* (such as literal biblical creation) then the theory's
> worth (scientific or explanatory) is just about zero.
Certainly so. And as far as science is concerned, strict Biblical
Creationism's scientific value is zilch-- there's no "about" about it.
*Less* strict Biblical Creationism may still have some scientific merit, but
not much. And basic Creationism (IE an unspecific Creator(s) created the
universe, end of theory) actually has even less scientific value. I may
still argue that it has *some* scientific merit, though, as it's not a
disproven theory, and is nearly incapable of being such-- but there *IS* a
prediction that it does make such that there is evidenciary support. It's
just kinda silly. That being "if a creator created the universe, there
should be a universe". And there is. Again having such little and
non-specific evidence makes its scientific worth virtually nil, but I'd
argue that it COULD be regarded as scientific.
> > Sounds like you think it's a scientific theory.
>
> When did I say it wasn't?
You didn't. Again, I think this area of the debate is where we suffered from
miscommunication. I was trying to show that in my last post. I'll say it
again, though. Because you listed "does not make any predictions that can be
tested" APART from "not falsifiable", I assumed you meant something
*different* by predicitons. I think the quote you provided worded what *I*
thought you meant well, however: "has not led to new discoveries, better
understanding, or increased understanding". Hence, I was attempting to
provide an example which *was* falsifiable, yet *also* did not provide
better/increased understanding of a field of study nor lead to new discoveries.
> In
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17131
> you tried to make the point that a theory need not make predictions in order
> to be scientific, but in support you provided an excellent example of a
> theory that does make predictions. *That* is what I've been trying to show.
> Your asserted intent was to provide a scientific theory that made no
> predictions, but you didn't do so.
? So you were debating my example-picking ability? Ok. I'm fine with that.
I'll agree that I'm not great at picking examples. But by ignoring the
hypothetical question, yet focusing on the example (intended as an
enhancement of, rather than a seperate topic than, a hypothetical example),
I assumed you had a problem with the hypothetical point I thought we were
debating-- IE that either:
From (I think) what you thought we were arguing: Creationism does/does not
"make any predictions that can be tested"-- wherein you were taking "does
not" and I was taking "does too"
OR
From what I thought we were arguing: a theory has not led to new
discoveries, better understanding, or increased understanding of a field of
study is/is not considered 'scientific'. Wherein I thought you were taking
"is not" and that I was taking "is too"
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) See my previous point that falsifiable theories that are proven false have no explanatory scientific value. This is the case with biblical creation. The "day-lengths" thing--to which you correctly refer as disproven--was by the way a classic (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
