Replies

Good of you to be open-minded. Of course, conveniently, the means to conclusively refute the idea of macro-evolution is no more available than that required to absolutely prove it.

S: Since the processes involved in microevolution, which you accept and macroevolution, which you don't except ARE EXACTLY THE SAME; your statement is not well taken. Secondly, science never "proves anything" and nothing is ever absolutely "proven". Proofs are only done in mathematics, about as absolute as one can get.

You see, the problem is not so much that a creationist view is not rational. It's that it doesn't conform to the pyramid of presuppositions on which so much of evolutionary theory is based.

S: Presuppositions or various premises in biological evolution have been backed up by mountains of data collected over the last 150 years. Some of the speculations Darwin had originally have been discarded, but the basis for evolution is stronger than ever, especially since the genetic revolution. On the other hand, creationisms main premise "God did it" is unsupported by any data, other than we can't tell whether a mutation was caused by God, a glitch in meiosis or a cosmic ray.

s; The inability to falsify creationism is its downfall as a science, whether you call it creationism, creation science or intelligent design. The other main mistake of creationists is to include first origin of life in the Theory of Evolution. It is not there.

s; One of the frustrations for scientists in dealing with creationists is creationists propensity for heaping criticism on arguments science is not making.

If the creationist view is true, then saying that it is unscientific is no different than a primitive ascribing an internal combustion engine to the workings of magic or alchemy.

S: Yes, by presupposing God did it then your point is correct. Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Logical fallacies are the stock in trade of the creationist positions. The level of rhetorical tricks is unmatched except for perhaps Goebbels.

You don't understand the mechanism, so you dismiss it in favor of a collection of postulates that are mutually supportive within a specific closed system of your own definition. Rather than being open to expanding your system to embrace another concept, you prefer to define the alternative as invalid, ignoring or rationalizing the internal philosophical and/or scientific contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within your theory.

S: God is not a concern of science. Science does not deny God or acknowledge Him. What creationists attempt to do is to get science to acknowledge God is there, when that would stop most investigation and progress. We would be back to idolatrous behavior unlinking cause and effect. "I became rich because I worshiped the right carved rock". When their attempt to push God into science class failed as "creation science" was laughed out of the courts, they substituted a new name with "intelligent design".

It would seem that the very simplicity of a model that postulates an intelligent creator doesn't satisfy the need to accomplish the unraveling of the universe through the exercise of intellect. Or perhaps it's simply a question of ego. Possibly you have a strong need to believe that the human mind is the apex of intellect; and, while time and space can be accepted as infinite, the idea of an infinite mind/personality is offensive.

S: Since I am a Christian Minister, your point is not well taken. I believe in God, but don't have to radically twist reality to force it into a "literal" Bible interpretation.
The literal view is unnecessary, since Genesis 1 conforms surprisingly well to the science God has made. To deny the works of God, as creationism does, puts creationists in danger of blasphemy and heresy.

The explanation below might move us beyond the " belief in TOE is the same as belief in God" notion. The differences between science and creationism are clear when viewed under the real scientific terms, rather than the vernacular understanding of creationists. "God did it" explains all phenomenon, but it has no data supporting it and is untestable.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

Wow, there are so many misstatements of fact and false leaps of logic in your reply, I don't have time to address them all without being late for work.

I'll focus on one, however. You claim that the processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same. Nonsense. Microevolution, as observed without the "intelligent design" interference of manipulation by researchers, occurs within our lifetime and does not demonstrate favorable mutations, but rather a process of natural selection of traits that are already built into the genetic code of a species, generally asserting themselves based on environmental factors. Macroevolution PRESUPPOSES favorable mutations that are not accompanied by sterility and which occur so swiftly that their developmental process does not impede the very survival of the species.

When you defend your position by citing 150 years worth of data, I have to laugh. That time frame is so minute compared to the eons necessitated by your model, that to stake out such an intransigent position is beyond absurd. For one to depend on the readings from an instrument, one must be able to calibrate the instrument. How, pray tell, do you calibrate an instrument for which there is no verifiable data with which to compare it? The very length of time required for the macroevolutionary theory to play itself out is the very thing that works against you, as it is exponentially likely that over the ages there are multiple factors you haven't even been capable of considering. I have no beef with macroevolution as speculation based on what science has learned. What annoys the hell out of me is the arrogance -- the utter lack of humility -- that prevents people like you from saying something as simple as "Well, maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced." No, you feel obligated to denigrate those who haven't bought into your scenario.

And, by the way, logical inference is considered valid legal argumentation, so to say that there is no evidence for the idea that "God did it" is another of your blind spots.

856 posted on 12/01/2004 2:12:31 AM CST by shubi

This was an excellent post on the subject of objectivity. Anyone on this thread should read it regardless of your position on this matter. I for one am neither a believer in creation nor do I subscribe to evolution. Why? Both have fallacies that IMO far outweigh the "evidence and research." Scientists, or at least those who try to advance the evolution theory, have consistently been caught creating their own evidence and therefore invalidating proper findings. I realize the same can be said for those who believe in creation, but their fallacy is also their fact therefore it is a circular argument.

I am for objective and open minded research into how and why things exist, but I also have seen too many "scientists" show their behind by manufacturing most of their evidence.