The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[VadeRetro]

The greater share by far of those who appreciate this also appreciate the exploration of the physical universe that He created.

ID is the only science I know that says, "When you get to miracle, stop! You're done."

[longshadow]

miraculous placemarker

[unspun]

I think most folk who believe in ID believe that all of the physical world (and all the processes built into it) are miracles. Such things are worth looking into, if you ask me.

[VadeRetro]

Such things are worth looking into, if you ask me.

Only don't find a naturalistic explanation? Isn't the "proof" of a miracle the beholder's inability to think of a natural explanation? My impression of ID-ists is "If you aren't seeing miracles everywhere, you're thinking too hard. Know when to stop thinking!"

I believe you agree.

I think most folk who believe in ID believe that all of the physical world (and all the processes built into it) are miracles.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Miraculous placemarker.

[js1138]

I think most folk who believe in ID believe that all of the physical world (and all the processes built into it) are miracles.

This was a big idea in Greek thought. I confess ignorance of the details, but at least some greek thinkers asserted that all motion (change) required the continuous application of divine will. Remarkably, this idea persists.

[VadeRetro]

Remarkably, this idea persists.

Well, obviously you need angels to push the planets around ...

[PatrickHenry]

Angelic placemarker.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

As far as I know, scientific theories never achieve proven status in the way that mathematics does. The evidence for or against the theory accrues over time.

For example, even though General Relativity is known to be correct to 1 part in 10¹⁴ and Newtonian theory is known to be correct to 1 part in 10⁷, both are still theories.

[Condorman]

The empirical process moves from hypothesis, to observation, to theory, to experiment, to fact...Did they change it after all these centuries?

I don't know how well you remember the mid 18th century, but it was about that time that-- Okay, the short answer is that the process you describe is not correct.

The scientific process is designed to model reality. The more observations we gather, the more accurate our approximations can be. Theories and hypotheses are our attempts to wrap an explanation around a bunch of facts. The theory itself is not fact.

You might be interested to learn what makes a good theory. But keep in mind, that, as Stephen Hawking writes:

"Any physical theory is provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

[PatrickHenry]

"Keeping the thread alive" bump.

[gomaaa]

I confess I didn't go very far in the sciences, but I do remember something from my grade school education: The empirical process moves from hypothesis, to observation, to theory, to experiment, to fact. (I was immediately stubborn about this as a child, in saying that there had to be observation before a hypothesis, too. Even now, I believe that was right, while qualifying that exercises of the imagination can substitute for observation.)

I talked about this some back in post 1563, I think before you were posting a bunch. Check it out and if you disagree, please let me know.

[PatrickHenry]

So long, Isaac. It was a good thread while it lasted.

[unspun]

Hugs!! Smooches!!!:

It's Alamo-Girl Day!

Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the advent of Alamo-Girl in FreeRepublic.com!

"March 14, 1998 - a day that will live in famy!"

Remember the Alamo-Girl posts over the years and how they have enlightened and enriched our FRee lives!

(And remember the subject of  www.alamo-girl.com !!  "Never again!")

[TaxRelief]

Missing link discovered! Domestic cat evolved from Lion!

[TaxRelief]

****BUMP****

[AntiGuv]

Wow! I'm amazed this thread still lives!

[PatrickHenry]

Final placemarker for a dead thread.

[LogicWings]

I'm not aware of any apologists who take the position that there can or should be no logical evidences

This is why it isn't worth my time debating such as yourself. This isn't what I said. I said, if creationism can be PROVEN it destroys the REASON for FAITH.

The KINGDOM is NOT OF THIS WORLD!

[LogicWings]

I suppose some creationists do this.

All creatioinists, by definition, attempt to prove the unprovable, by definition. It is in the very construction of the idea of creationism.

I'm sure there are reasons for fools and that fools reason.

I'm sure you don't really understand reason then.

You'd have to use your imagination! If metaphysics and irrational mental exercises are foolishness to you, though, even for the purposes of becoming well-reasoned, you probably won't be interested.

You're right, I'm not. This is a straw man argument. Imagination has its function, but doesn't 'prove' anything. You conflate metaphysics and irrational mental 'exercises' with actual science and scientific claims, as if they were equally valid.

Reminds me of the anti-war ninnies that claim moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam. Like those idiots who claim Bush is a 'dictator.' There is no 'reason' I should take such ideas seriously.