I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending Ken Ham or AIG; I agree that Creationism is not science, because it's impossible to test it against empirical evidence. You can't design an experiment that will prove or disprove the idea; it's more of a worldview than anything else.
But. I have yet to hear a convincing case made that evolution - meaning all current life having descended from, basically, non-life - is any different. I know that natural selection and change within species are easily verifiable/falsifiable concepts.
But how do you design an experiment to prove - or disprove - that we descended from apes, or that birds descended from early reptiles, or that microbes formed from non-living soup? How is that not just as much a worldview (or a religion, for that matter) as Creationism? How does it conform to the scientific method any better than Creationism does?
I know it doesn't invoke God, but it seems to invoke Chance in the same manner; it seems to have little to do with the scientific method, and therefore little to do with science.
I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here.
that birds descended from early reptiles,
***Well, there’s the fascinating DNA experiments that have been going on.
Protein extracted from 68 million-year-old T. rex bones has shed new light on the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816370/posts
I agree. But. I have yet to hear a convincing case made that evolution - meaning all current life having descended from, basically, non-life - is any different. I know that natural selection and change within species are easily verifiable/falsifiable concepts.
Actually your view of evolution is incorrect. It does not include origins. There is currently no accepted theory of origins. There are a lot of hypotheses competing for acceptance, but no theory.
There is, however, a robust theory describing how organisms changed since their origins. That is what the theory of evolution covers.
As for common descent, that was a decent theory for quite a while but was entirely supported when genetics came along. Genetics could have overturned that theory but rather it support it. There is no competing theory in science. There is the idea of "created kinds" coming from religion, but that idea has not been shown to be scientifically accurate.
But how do you design an experiment to prove - or disprove - that we descended from apes, or that birds descended from early reptiles, or that microbes formed from non-living soup? How is that not just as much a worldview (or a religion, for that matter) as Creationism? How does it conform to the scientific method any better than Creationism does?
Genetics can track the evolution of organisms pretty well. The other primates (apes and monkeys) were among the first critters to be sequenced. Those sequences have agreed pretty well with what the fossils already suggested. In science there does not seem to be much question anymore on this issue.
Microbes from non-living soup? Back to origins. See the above.
The worldview question is not that hard to answer. Scientists rely on evidence. They assemble facts and from those facts generate hypotheses and theories to explain the facts. In religion, the answers are revealed, and the data is rearranged to support that revelation. That is why scientists have such problems with creation "science" -- it does not follow the scientific method. It is designed to reach a specific conclusion no matter what the data say. Just look at Answers in Genesis and their Statement of Faith. The first line is: "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Check out the rest. With a tenet such as this AiG and the other creationist websites are doing the exact opposite of science. They are doing what is called apologetics.
I know it doesn't invoke God, but it seems to invoke Chance in the same manner; it seems to have little to do with the scientific method, and therefore little to do with science.
Chance is a term misused by creationists. The mutations that lead to micro- and then macroevolution are not totally random. They follow the rules of chemistry and physics. I don't have time to deal with this right now, but be assured that scientists are not just dropping the scientific method in favor of something else.
I'll check back later for any responses. I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here.