Not quite. Creationism WAS falsifiable--and was falsified. The data didn't support it. It's not an unscientific theory; it's a disproven one.
Not quite. Creationism WAS falsifiable--and was falsified. The data didn't support it. It's not an unscientific theory; it's a disproven one.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Technically, my argument is that it is non-productive, which could either be because: it is not falsifiable or it IS falsifiable but failed that test, so far.
It may depend on which version of Creationism you are dealing with...
It is true that specific attempts to turn Creationism into an empirical science have all been falsified, so far.
But, once you get into that mystical Omnipotent God factor, it turns into a completely un-falsifiable proposition.
But, I short-circuit that whole issue by focusing on productivity and applications. And, how either form of creationism lacks those.
Understand: The goal of my approach is to try to be persuasive to Creationists. And, although it might not be perfect, it seems to yield mildly better results, in the past, than the standard approach of only arguing about evidence.
It becomes more difficult for anyone, even a God-fearing religious person, to deny that Evolution is at least good for science, when they learn just how good for science it is, and how non-productive their own ideas were all along. They might still have faith in Creation, but edging them away from debating the matter on scientific grounds is still progress.
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Depends on which creationism is being discussed. "Flood geology" is a theory that can and has been disproven. "God created with apparent age and history" not so much.
Wowbagger said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism#Early_20th_century
Please learn your history. Creationism was a legitimate scientific theory until well into the 1900s. It made testable predictions and at least some information (specifically extant Lazarus taxa) seemed to support it. Scientific Creationists (here meaning researchers who held to a scientific theory of Creationism while using rigorous scientific methodology) also played key roles in establishing our understanding of sedimentology, general interpretations of Earth's history, and the age of the Earth. It wasn't until relatively recently that it became embroiled with Christian fundamentalism; prior to that, it was one of numerous scientific theories, Darwinism sensu stricto was another theory floating around at that time. Until the mechanism for evolution in the sense Darwin proposed was discovered, Creationism was a legitimate interpretation of the rock record.
I stand by my statement: Creationism is a disproven theory. People currently clinging to it are no less irrational for that fact, but it's important to have an understanding of the history of this debate. Otherwise you end up making false statements that Creationists can latch onto.
This also impacts your argument from utility, because there HAVE BEEN advances in science made by legitimate Creationists. None in the past hundred years or so, but still, it's important that you be aware of this so that if it comes up you can address it properly. I know that knowing the enemy isn't a popular concept on this forum, but we should at least strive for rigor if we are going to call ourselves scientists.
Good luck with that. I'm gonna try to drink an ocean. We'll see who succeeds first.
It is worth adding that Evolution has been observed, including, aptly, in Darwin's Finches.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Caution: post contains Over-Simplification
False.
Evolution is quite simply the process of differential fertility and differential mortality consistently affecting a non-homogenous gene pool over time.
Example:
Imagine an arbitrary herd of ungulates wandering the savanna, eating leaves from trees. Over time the trees grow taller, the lower branches in the habitat are stripped of leaves and the ungulates need to wander farther, spend more time browsing and still eat less. Except for that one ungulate with the little-bit-longer neck who can reach up and get one more mouthful of Acacia leaves from every tree. That one ungulate will live slightly longer than the others in the herd, and will have, say, one more baby than the others.
That's differential fertility -- one entity in a gene pool having slightly more input on the total gene pool than the others. This creates a feedback loop where the successful trait leads to more individuals in the population with that trait over time.
Lots of time.
Whacking great bucket loads of time.
Differential mortality has the same effect in the opposite direction; by stressing the population in a particular constant way over thousands of generations particular traits are removed or reduced in the population. "Next thing ya know" we have Giraffes, who can eat Acacia leaves that no other ungulates can reach.
False.
Evolution is quite simply the process of differential fertility and differential mortality consistently affecting a non-homogenous gene pool over time.
Example:
Imagine an arbitrary herd of ungulates wandering the savanna, eating leaves from trees. Over time the trees grow taller, the lower branches in the habitat are stripped of leaves and the ungulates need to wander farther, spend more time browsing and still eat less. Except for that one ungulate with the little-bit-longer neck who can reach up and get one more mouthful of Acacia leaves from every tree. That one ungulate will live slightly longer than the others in the herd, and will have, say, one more baby than the others.
That's differential fertility -- one entity in a gene pool having slightly more input on the total gene pool than the others. This creates a feedback loop where the successful trait leads to more individuals in the population with that trait over time.
Lots of time.
Whacking great bucket loads of time.
Differential mortality has the same effect in the opposite direction; by stressing the population in a particular constant way over thousands of generations particular traits are removed or reduced in the population. "Next thing ya know" we have Giraffes, who can eat Acacia leaves that no other ungulates can reach.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
What did I say that contradicted that history?
I accept that. Though, it turns out, none of those advances were actually creationist in nature. They were all, later, understood in terms of natural processes.
There are also legit advances being made by folks who happen to be Creationists, today. But, again, all of them end up becoming understood in natural terms, eventually.
The argument from utility is neutral to which 'side' obtains utility. If it happens to come from Creationists, then it comes from Creationists. If not, then not. What does that have to do with anything?
It is a tough job. I won't lie. But, you don't get anywhere if you're not diplomatic towards what they value deep inside.Good luck with that. I'm gonna try to drink an ocean. We'll see who succeeds first.
It was settled long before that.
Good thing we're not still stuck on Darwin's ideas, then. ToE has come a long way since him.
Yeah, that's part of how evolution works.
Evolutionary processes are not random, in the same way that laws of physics aren't random. If you throw a ball into the air it isn't going to move about randomly, but that doesn't mean there's some intelligent being directing it's movement. Similarly evolution doesn't happen via random processes, but that doesn't mean an intelligent being is directing everything.
Oh, and we can come up with several ways for a structure like a flagella to evolve.
First, citation needed. Second, why is your assumption that the evolutionary scientists messed up, and not the statistician?
You mean methods like reproduction, gene flow, mutations, natural selection, biased mutation, and genetic hitchhiking? All of which you would be aware of if you had done such basic research as reading the Wikipedia page on the subject?
Retrograde
Muse
I thought it was 6000 - 4000 B.C. and 2000 A.D. - but what's a millennium among friends?
As for mechanism - well, I'm not an expert in this field, but in the one biology class I took forty years ago we learned about these things called chromosomes (which can be seen with the appropriate tools) that split and re-combine during the process of reproduction, leading to organisms that are not quite the same as their parents, leading to intra-species variation. So even without getting down to the gene level there is a proposed method; start looking at gene replication within cells and the mechanism is even clearer (and Dinwar will correct me where I was wrong
)Re the science vs faith debates: the Catholic church has no problems reconciling the two. Individual fringe cases aside, the current teaching is that the account of the creation is Genesis is meant to be read as allegory, and that evolution is the means by which the deity created life as we know it. (There's a bit of hand-waving about when hominids became human, but overall it's an accepted fact.)
However, if someone can show me a race of six-limbed birds I'll change my mind.
Worth quoting this post.
I'm British and I guess that most people in the UK (and Western Europe) are either agnostic or atheist now.
I do have a couple of close friends and colleagues who are devout Christians* and both of them fully understand and accept the theory of evolution** (one is a Methodist, the other Anglican). They are on the socially liberal wing though (one describes it as paying more attention to the New Testament than the Old)...
**I have only come across one proper biblical fundamentalist in real life, but he was considered to be rather eccentric - highly intelligent and educated, but with very narrow application of his academic abilities.
*being engineers, we often discuss science at lunchtime and this includes various stories about evolution.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Actually, "punctuated evolution" is just the most dramatic of changes, caused by pressure on the critter involved due to outside influences such as drought, deforestation, ice ages, etc. This is when the least fit to survive die off quicker, leaving a population consisting of only the more survivable.
But I think you want to have that guided, right?
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
Creationism was never deemed a scientific theory. It was the literal translation of a few verses in Genesis from the Bible to challenge the theory of evolution. The outcome was as ridiculous as scientists trying to explain metaphysics and the supernatural through natural laws. (Dawkins comes to mind).
But that is ancient history. A new generation of Christians educated in the sciences such as evolutionary biology and the natural sciences have found classical evolutionary theories rather inadequate. That has given rise to theists evolution and proponents of Intelligent design.
Scientists such as Ken Miller and others like David Sloan (both evolutionary biologist) have criticized Dawkin for claiming to practice science when he is actually out there bashing religion....sounds like a delusional scientists attacking phantom delusional believers.
Beyond Demonic Memes
Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/
Kenneth R Miller on Richard Dawkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLi-UwKrLk
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
You mean cdesign proponentsists? Intelligent design is not science, it is rebranded creationism and nothing more.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
You probably should read up a bit more on punctuated equilibrium. Right now you're not getting it.
Please elaborate on your threshold of "vagueness" before you find a theory to be acceptable and on what you base this level?
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
Intelligent design challenges the limits of complex adaptation which was one of the most troubling hurdles for Darwin.
The introduction of irreducible complexity shows that biological systems are too complex to have evolved gradually, thereby proving Darwin worst nightmare.
"Irreducible complexity" is just an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "we don't currently know how this evolved, therefor it didn't." Of course, the list of irreducibly complex structures keeps shrinking, because we keep finding out how things evolved.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
False, but I'm not gonna waste your time or mine explaining it in detail. Only so much to be gained by pouring water in a sieve.
Short answer, every organ we see as complex and complete can be seen in primitive form in an organism that never evolved a more complex version. Look it up.
justintime
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,260
I think the examples used were the most basic of early life forms like the simple virus which even to modern science is an extremely adaptive and resilient highly complex organism.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Intelligent design is not science, it's just denial. ID says "irreducible complexity, must be designed" and that's the end of the story, no science has been done. Real scientists say "irreducible complexity? Let's study further, oh look, it's not really irreducible". The only example given so far in this thread has been bacterial flagella. Guess what? We've found a pathway for the evolution of flagella that accounts for every single mutation required, each happening one at a time, each providing an evolutionary benefit, all the way from a simple pore in a cell to a fully functional flagellum. It's not irreducibly complex, it just looks that way to someone who gives up without further study, aka creationists.