Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:31:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5560 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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).
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 example of post hoc reasoning. Creationists had "six
days" to work with, so they shoehorned all data they could into a six day
timeframe, even though it meant arbitrarily juggling the day lengths and
anything else they had to manipulate to get data to fit the theory--that's
exactly backward from how science works.
> It's just that one can bend the written word to fit the data.
But then the creationist runs into a two-pronged problem:
1) if they're changing their "interpretation" of The Immutable Word,
then how do they justify those changes within the context of
The Immutable Word?
2) if they're changing their interpretation anyway, why bother with
An Immutable Word in the first place? IE., why use Genesis at
all, if you're just going to tweak it as much as necessary?
And what happens when (as is often the case) observation simply refuses to
correspond with Genesis-based prediction? When does the creationist say
"you know, I was wrong!" As someone else pointed out, when Darwin put forth
his theory of natural selection, Creationism was the wisdom of the day, yet
the Darwin model of evolution won out over centuries-established dogma.
Of course, you might not be referring to the Genesis creation myth, but as
I've said previously, my argument has focused on that particular myth and
the existence of an infinite God/creator. Further, the entire push to
establish old-school creationism (ie: Intelligent Design) in public schools
is based on an overwhelmingly Xtian faith-base and is put forth almost
exclusively by Xtians. That's not dismissing the idea based on its
adherents, but in the context of this debate it's ridiculous to pretend that
the underlying discussion isn't about evolution vs. Xtian creationism.
> 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.
Please provide an example of something from creationist "science" that has
been confirmed to a high degree of verifiability via scientific means.
After you've done that (which I don't think anyone can do), give me an
example of a prediction made by creationist "science" that has been borne
out by empirical observation (which I also don't think anyone can do.)
And when you're giving those examples, please restrict yourself to answers
that do not also confirm evolutionary theory, since those answers are better
served by the theory that requires fewer huge assumptions (such as "there's
this creator entity, see...")
> 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
Tell me how it could be disproven; a theory that cannot be wrong has no
value in being true.
Also, tell me how basic creationism could be verified with a high degree
of certainty.
> 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"
That's a truncation of my point, but essentially correct. You must recall
that I've been working from the assumption of an infinite God as Creator, so
in that case all bets are off. If we're talking about a non-infinite
creator, then we can't really use Genesis, but that's okay--there are other
"creationist" theories. Even then, I'll need you to present a few
predictions based on creationist theory that can be tested.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Apparently without a 2nd thought, sadly :( It still rather catches me by suprise that the 1st instinct isn't "Oh! We might be wrong!" but is instead "Oh! We must have misinterpreted!". The justification, BTW, is just that: 'Our former (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
