Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The problem with YEC/OEC isn't that they make assumptions. It's that they either don't test those assumptions, or ignore completely data that contradicts those assumptions.
Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?
What important contributions to science have been made by Sarfati? A review of his curriculum vitae doesn't come up with much in the way of publications.
His biography says he only "co-authored" papers in scientific literature, which is odd; if he's a PhD, he should have done at least one on his own. But I can't find any.
My personal encounters with Sarfati showed him to be very ignorant of biology and evolutionary theory in particular.
And his paper in AIG, misrepresenting the research findings of astronomers Clark and Caswell, “Exploding stars point to a young universe”(the article seems to have been recently removed from the AIG site) quote-mines their paper (1976MNRAS.174..267C Page 267) by claiming the astronomers think the number of supernova remnants is a "mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved."
Ignorance and deception are not qualities you find in scientists.
What important contributions to science have been made by Sarfati? A review of his curriculum vitae doesn't come up with much in the way of publications.
His biography says he only "co-authored" papers in scientific literature, which is odd; if he's a PhD, he should have done at least one on his own. But I can't find any.
I'm not sure I agree about the single authorship issue. In many fields, one's PhD research will be published jointly with others, since it's impossible to do certain kinds of experiment by yourself. I've been a scientist for twenty years, working exclusively in one form or another of big science, and I think I only have one single-author paper (a not very good review article).
More relevant is that (judging by his publication list), Sarfati is no longer doing science at all. He hasn't published anything in fourteen years. Scientists are people who do science, not people with science degrees.
But you don't actually know much of anything about evolution -- you yourself have said that you don't know the evidence for it. Nor are you able to point to assumptions that evolution does not share with any other science. Creationists attack the "assumptions" behind evolution because they're convinced that it's wrong, but don't know why.
If this were not the case, we would see cogent, accurate critiques of the assumptions behind evolutionary biology. I've certainly never seen such a thing from a creationist.
You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:
animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.
You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:
animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.
Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.
You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:
animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.
Thinking through the basics of evolutionary theory, I am finding it remarkably difficult to come up with any assumptions. The one I can think of is not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but of all science; namely, that if the observations our theory predicts we should be able to make are in fact observed, it is likely that our theory provides a correct model of nature.
Darwin began with a couple of observations and a couple of inferences and came to a conclusion. Most of evolutionary theory would seem to consist of the same ingredients.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Thinking through the basics of evolutionary theory, I am finding it remarkably difficult to come up with any assumptions. The one I can think of is not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but of all science; namely, that if the observations our theory predicts we should be able to make are in fact observed, it is likely that our theory provides a correct model of nature.
Darwin began with a couple of observations and a couple of inferences and came to a conclusion. Most of evolutionary theory would seem to consist of the same ingredients.
Within my knowledge, continental drift hypothesis fits perfectly to your description. we knew it works, but did not know how it works. There is no basic assumption anywhere in this example. It is simply a prediction based on pattern of data.
Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.
So, is there any assumption in the theory of evolution? If yes, what is it?
Assume you give me one. Is it proper to attack it first, if one wished to argue against the evolution?
So, is there any assumption in the theory of evolution? If yes, what is it?
We assume that we exist.
We assume that the universe exists.
We assume that things happened as they appear to have happened. What I mean by that is that we don't take into consideration ideas like, "it was all created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of history".
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We assume that things happened as they appear to have happened. What I mean by that is that we don't take into consideration ideas like, "it was all created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of history".
Linear Mode
