scigirl

I agree with Oolon - ignorance.

Dawkins talks about this a bit in The Blind Watchmaker stating that he had more in common with Paley more than some other philosopher durig Paleys time that said, "ah, life isn't that special." Both Dawkins and Paley recognize that life is special, and needs a special explanation. Of course, before Darwin, Paley's argument was the only one around. Now we know better.

Heh, I just found out that one of my BF's co-workers doesn't believe in evolution (he is a college student, in computer science). Although he is not religious, he uses the same arguments as we hear from YECS: If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps? etc. But he does believe in microevolution and in an old earth, so for him it is just a lack of education in biology.

Oh...I want to add "arrogance" to the list as well. "I didn't evolve from no damn dirty ape" I've heard someone tell me before. As if being made from dirt is soooo much better. Primates are very cool and intelligent creatures, I'm glad to call them 'family'!

scigirl

Odemus

If this is true, how can you conclude that:

How is creationism not scientific? In the absence of any concrete proof to verify evolution or creationism, wouldn't both positions be at an equal empirical disadvantage?

The same goes for spontaneous generation. Or the curious belief that life sprang from the inanimate. Until the conditions under which these theories can be recreated are 'proven', how can you say one system (evolution) is scientific while the other (creationism) is not?

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

Mageth

How is creationism not scientific? In the absence of any concrete proof to verify evolution or creationism, wouldn't both positions be at an equal empirical disadvantage?

Creationism is not scientific, and "creation scientists" do not conform to the scientific method. Creationism assumes an external creator and a particular creation model (genesis 1-3) and shoehorns evidence to match the model. Evolutionary science examines the evidence and forms and modifies theories/models to fit the evidence.


There is a lot of evidence that corroborates the evolutionary model (and new evidence or reinterpretations of existing evidence often results in adjustments to the model). There's no evidence that corroborates the genesis creation model. New and old evidence alike are "explained" according to the existing, static creation model.

If another model was found to better fit the evidence, science would abandon the current evolutionary model. The same cannot be said of "creation science."

Further, evolutionary theory is testable/falsifiable. Creationism is not.

Another item, there are at probably about 500 different creation stories claimed by one religion or another - all different. How does "creation science" distinguish from among these? Since "creation" requires magick, anything's possible.

The same goes for spontaneous generation. Or the curious belief that life sprang from the inanimate.

More curious than a supernatural god forming man out of the dust of the ground, and woman from the rib of the man?

Further, it's "abiogenisis," not "spontaneous generation." And current abiogenisis theory describes, more or less, life self-organizing from what you might call "animate" matter (e.g. self-replicating molecules) that self-organized out of the inanimate.

Until the conditions under which these theories can be recreated are 'proven', how can you say one system (evolution) is scientific while the other (creationism) is not?

See above. Further, while it may be possible to recreate the conditions of abiogenisis, it's impossible to recreate genesis creation. Thus abiogenisis is testable, while "creationism" is not.

jj

I really find this kind of selective quoting annoying. The absense of "concrete proof" is irrelevant, and that has been clearly, bluntly explained many times.

It's a simple question: Can you falsify the statement? Yes or no?

One could falsify evolution, except that since it's been observed to happen (which, by the way, is also flat-out, absolute, incontrovertable CONCRETE PROOF to anyone using a reasonable standard of evidence who isn't avoiding the facts) it's going to be hard to falsify.

On the other hand, there is literally no way to falsify "god did it".

So, one is science, and verified science for which concrete proof HAS been demonstrated (evolution refers to changes in living organisms and speciation, and that has been observed, despite the duplicious propaganda otherwise), while the other is not even subject to the scientific method.

The question of how life arose is not evolution, and anyone trying to connect that to the equation is simply trying to escape from the evidence.

MOJO-JOJO

Hey scigirl, my wife pulled this one on me when we were having a "discussion" about evolution recently (ie; I discuss, she argues). I understand intuitively why this is a bad argument, but what is a good immediate response to the average, non-reading (beyond the bible) layperson that throws out this "apologetic"?

MOJO-JOJO

AGREED! That was my hunch...........

Perhaps she is really a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness and is therefore "technically" correct.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

KeithHarwood

It's easy. We aren't descended from chimps. Both of us are descended from pre-chimps. And not one, but a whole population of pre-chimps, all slightly different from each other, just like human beings today are slightly different from each other. They lived in tropical forests, eating fruits, insects and the occasional small animal. Some were good at swinging from branches and collecting fruit. Others were a bit bigger and slightly less agile, yet others a bit better at running. Because of their size the bigger ones found it a little easier to live at higher altitudes where it was a bit cooler. The ones that were slightly better runners found it a little easier to live on the savannas that were starting to form, replacing the forests. Because they lived in slightly different places the bigger ones tended to mate with bigger ones, the runners with runners and the swingers with swingers. Over time the bigger ones got better at living at higher altitudes, the runners got better at living on the savannas and the swingers got better at living in the forests. Then along came a zoologist who arbitrarily called the big ones gorillas, the swingers chimpanzees and the runners humans.

Or, to put it another way, if you are descended from your cousin, why is your cousin still alive?

scigirl

thanks Keith,

I was going to say something similar.
We are an offshoot of chimps - just like Extended Systems is an off-shoot of Hewlett Packard, and HP is still around.

Hee hee. Aren't there some 'swinger' humans though?

Exactly. And I think that's what my BF asked his co-worker too (I've trained him well!)

scigirl

Starboy

TOP TEN REASONS FOR WHY I DO NOT CONSIDER CREATIONISM A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

1. The bible is not a scientific peer-reviewed journal.
2. Believers in creationism do not take their theory tentatively. They believe it is absolutely true, no changes or revisions needed.
3. Authors of scientific papers are not allowed to explain their results with: “and then a miracle occurred!”
4. Any five-year-old astronomer could point out the glaring flaws in the Genesis sequence of events:
--a. Earth covered in water.
--b. Light (no sun)
--c. Land
--d. Plants
--e. Stars, sun and moon
--f. Fish and birds
--g. Land animals
--h. Mankind
5. Other than the creation sequence the theory has no predictive power, unless you consider “Because God made it so” a legitimate scientific argument.
6. Forget geologic dating, astronomical dating has the universe far older than the bible could ever account for.
7. Genesis is composed of three ancient fables that predate the Jews, and is more aptly classified as mythology. In any case what we have today is the result of a long oral and transcription history that has scrambled and lost what shred of science it originally contained.
8. Creationists are willing to use any fallacy in the logic books to achieve their ends. They will stoop to the most base tactics, distorting other scientific results and theories to make their point.
9. The basis of all creationist arguments is: "I am right because you are wrong." Can any high school debating team member tell me what is wrong with this argument?
10. Creation scientists (oxymoron if there ever was one) do little or nothing by way of genuine tests of their theory. One of the most striking things you will find in creationist literature as compared to scientific literature is the virtual absence of any experimental or observational work

Adios,

Starboy

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: gkochanowsky ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Thanks Keith and scigirl, excellent example. Just wish my old 3 lb "hard drive" wasn't full so I could memorize this.

Now let me ask you this. In the past few months, when I've gone to church on Wednesday nights with my family (for dinner only ), I have, on occasion, engaged in a brief evolution vs creationism debate with some of the "leader" types there. One thing they love to throw back is, "Come on....HOW do they know all this?? They can make up anything they want about natural history, but how do they really know??".

Basically, they're saying that it is easier and more "reasonable" to accept the claims of the bible, than it is to believe ANYthing scientists and evolutionists claim. You and I know this is crap, and your example above makes perfect "common" sense to all of us. But what is a good response to "How do we really know?"

It's actually somewhat ironic how quick they are to say, "they can make ANYthing up about evolution", but the notion that perhaps those who wrote the bible could [and did] make ANYthing up about a supersticious belief system never enters their minds....oyyy!