Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history?
One way might be to use the actual scientific method instead of your straw-version:
1) Observe and record.
2) Form a hypothesis.
3) Make predictions that follow from (2).
4) Test the predictions from (3).
Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
Science does not lay claim to exclusive explanations. You must understand this, lest your entire argumentative foundation collapse due to a basic inaccuracy.
In stark contrast to evolution, there are human witnesses that can attest to my birth.
Evolutionary mechanisms are observed in labs daily.
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine
Argument from Consequences -> invalid. A belief or premise cannot be shown to be true or false based on the consequences of holding said belief or premise.
If evolution is true, it is true regardless of the consequences.
If evolution is false, it is false regardless of the consequences.
The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith
False. It is indeed permitted to the modern seeker to believer in the actions of a supernatural agent. Science merely cannot measure whether such a belief is true or false. (This is in contrast to a belief in the consequences of a supernatural agent's actions. That is, if the belief has measurable consequences (e.g., a global Noah's flood), then it can be shown to be false. Positing that Angels push the planets around Sol such that planetary motion adhere to what we perceive as the laws of gravity cannot be shown false.)
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin
This is arguing from the particular to the general (if I weren't so lazy I'd look up the name of the logical fallacy.) Because a small group of polemicists make statements that God is an unacceptable idea, does not mean in any way that evolutionists in general are obliged to buy such bilge. To refute, we merely point to the numbers of evolutionists (theistic and atheistic, both) on this board alone that have constantly refuted the idea that evolution requires such a silly belief.
Evolutionary mechanisms are observed in labs daily.
A Parable:
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
And you should not confuse evolution with atheism.
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.
Science can be applied to historical events. Supernova only occur once, but does that mean they can't be studied scientifically?
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history?
We don't need to repeat pre-history to study it. What we do is make observations about the present, and apply those observations to historical evidence.
In the case of evolution, we observe it occuring today and can observe the mechanisms for evolutionary change. In order to apply it to a historical context, all we have to do is assume the laws of physics are the same today as they were in the past.
[b]Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.[/i]
You're arguing a strawman. First of all, given the dynamics of real-world conditions, it is impossible to replicate any evolutionary pathways exactly the same as have already occured. Nature just doesn't work like that.
Second, we have physical evidence that a transition from reptiles to birds took place (both from the fossil record and comparitive antomy of existing species).
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
Not long ago, even micro-evolution (genetic change within species) was rejected by those adhering to a theological view of biological diversity. The evidence forced them to accept micro-evolution. Then those same types of people rejected Macro-evolution (evolution from one species into another), but now Macro-evolution has been observed, predicted and repeated both in nature and in the lab, and very well documented. So many of the creationists are realizing they have to accept that evolution can create a new species due to the overwhelming strength of the evidence. Now, the argument has shifted to rejecting how a reptile evolved into a bird, because we've "never seen it happen."
Scientific principles can be tested without having to replicate the whole theory in its entirety as you suggest. The fossil record, molecular biology, genetics (and many other disciplines) all working together provide compelling evidence of evolution's history. While it is more indirect than personally seeing an ancient reptile evolve into a duck, it is no less good science, with a proven track record of reliability far exceeding any other methodology used to understand our natural world.
Yes, science is elaborate, but not a hoax.
Last edited by tcampen; 8th November 2003 at 03:11 PM.
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
Originally Posted by Arikay
You never said anything about witnesses, you said "repeat in lab"
So your witnesses dont work. However, if they do work, then that means evidence can be brought in that shows an event happend in the past, in which case, evolution has plenty of that.
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin
Linear Mode
