Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · #**211** 3rd August 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Bellman

Completely false. Neither Creationism nor ID can be supported in any way via science. Neither of them is science.

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

Arikay · #**212** 3rd August 2004, 11:29 PM

I think why some don't see creationism or Intelligent design as science is because both use an untestable unfalsifiable supernatural entity to fill holes and fix problems in their theories. Thus its not very scientific

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

razzelflabben · #**213** 3rd August 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Well, the light bulb just switched on!

It's taken some time I know, but I believe I have finally grasp the main point of what you are saying.

And no wonder I've been having a problem with it. I must congratulate you on coming up with a totally unique way to defend creationism, and one of the most bizarre I have ever seen.

Now I get the point of the "strains" and "elements" of theories.

Ok, I have highlighted sections of your statements above. Tell me if I am reading you correctly.

First, you are saying that a theory can only be called disproved or falsified if every element of the theory is disproved. It is not enough to disprove its unique features. For then parts of the theory still stand.

Hence, when creationism says that living things reproduce after their kind, that is one of the statements of creationism that must be disproved in order to totally falsify that theory. And if it is not totally falsified, if only certain elements of the theory are falsified, (e.g. young earth, for those who lean in that direction) then creationism is still a potentially valid theory.

Then we get some really fancy footwork around the concept that each theory (evolution, creationism ID) includes elements of the two other theories.

Note, I have already objected that this is not true of evolution, but that does not affect your case.

We know that historically, creationists changed their tune from their firm stand on "fixity of species" in the 19th century, to "fixity of kinds" in the early 20th century. Where "fixity of species" demanded that every species and sub-species be a separate and distinct special creation, "fixity of kinds" permits the operation of evolutionary mechanisms within the kind, but does not permit such mechanisms to cross the kind barrier.

"Fixity of species" demanded that the Siamese, Persian and Manx cats each be a special creation designed for its particular geographical niche, and in no way related to each other. "Fixity of kinds" permitted each of these to be an adaptation of an originally created kind.

Now, this means that an element of evolution is now part of the theory of creationism. And since it is not sufficient to disprove a theory by disproving only some of its elements (e.g. that there is no "kind" barrier), one can only totally falsify creationism by disproving all its elements--including the "element of evolution" which has now been incorporated into creationist theory.

But if one disproves this element of evolution in the theory of creationism, that means that one has also disproved the theory of evolution!!.

Hence any validation of the theory of evolution is ipso facto a validation of the theories of creationism and ID since both of them incorporate elements of evolution in their theories.

All three theories therefore stand or fall together. You cannot totally falsify any one of them without falsifying all three of them.

Have I got that right?

As I said, very very unique (that's bad English I know, you can't have comparisons of uniqueness, but...words fail me!)

I have never seen this argument before. And I can only say one thing about it.

IT IS COMPLETELY BONKERS!

Now please tell me what ever has given you the idea that I am argueing for C or ID or even that I am argueing against E? How does one go from saying that all three are theory and should be addressed as such, to argueing for or against one of the theories? This is the very type of things I am argueing against, the assumptions that are made that turn what should be a communication into an arguement of belief systems. I thought E wasn't your belief system and yet you are turning this into a discussion about which theory is truth. Though that is not proof of a belief system, few people are this passionate about something that is fact, rather than a belief.

How many times have I told you, that my only issue is with those who claim that the TOE is fact, or that science holds all the answers to life. And when you bring up arguements to support the TOE I point to ways that draw questions to the data and so now, I am argueing for C? I am really, really confused as to how this line of reasoning occurs. Can you please explain it to me?

Jimmy The Hand · #**214** 3rd August 2004, 11:38 PM

saying that all three are theory and should be addressed as such

A theory needs evidence

razzelflabben · #**215** 3rd August 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

define kind please, in a testable way. how would we for example check that a salamander and a pig are of different kinds?

Wouldn't this turn the discussion into a discussion of theory against theory rather than a discussion about what is and is not theory?

razzelflabben · #**216** 3rd August 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I think why some don't see creationism or Intelligent design as science is because both use an untestable unfalsifiable supernatural entity to fill holes and fix problems in their theories. Thus its not very scientific

I cannot say that I agree or disagree with this idea, but I do recall a post earlier that discussed science as being self healing. I forget the term in the half asleep state I am currently in, so how does this differ. Science corrects it assumptions based on the data, but C and ID are not alowed to do the same? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Arikay · #**217** 4th August 2004, 12:03 AM

Its not that they aren't allowed, its that they refuse too.

I would Love if a creationist group said "your right, these pieces of evidence were false, we retract them." or answer a question "we don't know" instead of "God did it, so we are still right."

But the fact is, creationist groups purposely ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas.
AiG is my common example, although many other groups have a similar statement, AiG says,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...bout/faith.asp
"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

So AiG members are stuck, no matter what thr evidence says, if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, it must be ignored.

ID is slightly better as far as "healing" itself, although it seems to be stuck in the same faulty pattern, which is, pick something that hasn't been heavily studied and claim that it couldn't have been created through evolution and thus must be intelligently designed. So far it has been wrong everytime.
Their fault lies in the fact that it stick god into gaps of knowledge. Instead of saying "we don't know" it says "god did it."

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I cannot say that I agree or disagree with this idea, but I do recall a post earlier that discussed science as being self healing. I forget the term in the half asleep state I am currently in, so how does this differ. Science corrects it assumptions based on the data, but C and ID are not alowed to do the same? Sounds like a double standard to me.

The Bellman · #**218** 4th August 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

There is no evidence that supports creationism or ID (as has been discussed above, I'm not talking of spurious "evidence" for creationism or ID such as the observed evolution which creationism maintains can happen).

doubtingmerle · #**219** 4th August 2004, 08:04 AM

Razzleflabben, would you please answer two basic questions about your strain of ID theory?

1.How did the first zebra come into existance? Science tells us that the zebra evolved over millions of years from a small dog-like creature known as Hyracotherium. (See Horse Evolution) Do you agree? If not, then how did the first zebra come into existance? Was there a stirring of a mud-puddle, and out popped the first zebra? Is that how it happened?

2. When were zebras created in relation to other animals? Science says there were other animals here for hundreds of millions of years before there were any zebras. Do you agree? If not, how long do you think it was from the first animal until the first zebra?

Unless you can answer such basic questions, you haven't begun to present an alternative to evolution. And unless you present us an alternative, than evolution wins by default. For it is the only alternative on the table.

razzelflabben · #**220** 4th August 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

Its not that they aren't allowed, its that they refuse too.

I would Love if a creationist group said "your right, these pieces of evidence were false, we retract them." or answer a question "we don't know" instead of "God did it, so we are still right."

But the fact is, creationist groups purposely ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas.

AiG is my common example, although many other groups have a similar statement, AiG says,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...bout/faith.asp

"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

So AiG members are stuck, no matter what thr evidence says, if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, it must be ignored.

ID is slightly better as far as "healing" itself, although it seems to be stuck in the same faulty pattern, which is, pick something that hasn't been heavily studied and claim that it couldn't have been created through evolution and thus must be intelligently designed. So far it has been wrong everytime.
Their fault lies in the fact that it stick god into gaps of knowledge. Instead of saying "we don't know" it says "god did it."

I apprecieate your answer, it seems honest and sincere, however, I have two questions for you.

1. Do all E boast that the TOE is proven fact?

2. How do you feel when you are thrown into this category?

The bottom line to my objections is that we argue about theories rather than communicate about them. To generalize and steryotype does nothing to enhance communication on either side of the issue. For example, I have a similar experience only opposite than you. The E camp makes claims that they cannot support and are difiant about how right they are. While the C and ID that I know are hummmmm, how does this affect what we believe. What I perpose to you is that if both sides throw away all this steryotyping and start listening to each other, we wouldn't have to have a war over the issue. The conversation has been predominately about E because I was brought here by an E and it is the E who have been responding, I have a similar message for the C and ID. In fact, I have learned much about the TOE from this discussion and though my personal beliefs are stronger because of it, I appreciate the knowledge I have gained. I could have learned so much more if the accusations and preconcieved ideas had not existed in the first place and that is something I regret, because I do love knowledge, but such is life and forums.