Can Creationism Interpret Evidence?

[Loudmouth]

We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all. Let's see who is right.

I went to Homologene and found the pairwise comparisons for the cytochrome c gene, cycs. The pairwise comparison shows the differences between model organisms. Here are the results for the differences between the human gene and the model organisms:

Let's focus on three species: human (H. sapiens), mouse (M. musculus), and chicken (G. gallus). Let's also use the DNA comparison to negate the effect of synonymous mutations in the protein sequence.

The similarity between the human and mouse gene is 90.5%. The similarity between the human and chicken gene is 81.6%.

Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?

 

[crjmurray]

One is feathery and the other isn't because God made it that way? Is....is that right?

 

[Loudmouth]

One is feathery and the other isn't because God made it that way? Is....is that right?

I was hoping for a number and an explanation to go with it.

"Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?"

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was hoping for a number and an explanation to go with it.

"Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?"

No, but to give an example of how I can argue for creationism if I so desire, here is my counter to that:

Quantum physics cannot predict if a mass is going to suddenly appear, like a golf ball, but from that theory, it suggests it as a possibility, or so I hear. Does the inability to predict make the idea wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but to give an example of how I can argue for creationism if I so desire, here is my counter to that:

Evolution can predict the percentage, and give a why, just for the record. I don't want to bury the lead too deep.

Quantum physics cannot predict if a mass is going to suddenly appear, like a golf ball, but from that theory, it suggests it as a possibility, or so I hear. Does the inability to predict make the idea wrong?

Quantum physics can predict how many golf balls you would need before you have a specific probability of one disappearing. It can make predictions, and we can test those predictions. Not so with creationism.

 

[crjmurray]

I was hoping for a number and an explanation to go with it.

"Now comes the hard part. What does creationism predict will be the difference between the chicken and mouse cycs gene sequence, and why?"

Aw...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution can predict the percentage, and give a why, just for the record. I don't want to bury the lead too deep.



Quantum physics can predict how many golf balls you would need before you have a specific probability of one disappearing. It can make predictions, and we can test those predictions. Not so with creationism.

Nicely said, but my devil's advocate question remains: does the inability to predict make something wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nicely said, but my devil's advocate question remains: does the inability to predict make something wrong?

The inability to make predictions means that it isn't an interpretation. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it isn't even wrong (which was meant as an insult, btw).

 

[PsychoSarah]

The inability to make predictions means that it isn't an interpretation. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it isn't even wrong (which was meant as an insult, btw).

It could still be considered an interpretation, just not one that is particularly useful in learning more. Which isn't the purpose of creationism anyways, so why would that matter?

 

[Loudmouth]

It could still be considered an interpretation, just not one that is particularly useful in learning more. Which isn't the purpose of creationism anyways, so why would that matter?

How could it be considered an interpretation when the same conclusion would be reached no matter what the data is?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How could it be considered an interpretation when the same conclusion would be reached no matter what the data is?

Pretty sure if a more intelligent species than humans was found on earth, it wouldn't do well with biblical creationism. It can't work with every potential finding.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretty sure if a more intelligent species than humans was found on earth, it wouldn't do well with biblical creationism. It can't work with every potential finding.

If any percentage of similarity between chicken and mouse DNA would be consistent with creationism, then a creationist can not claim that they interpret the DNA evidence differently. They don't interpret it at all.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If any percentage of similarity between chicken and mouse DNA would be consistent with creationism, then a creationist can not claim that they interpret the DNA evidence differently. They don't interpret it at all.

Maybe creationism is a narrower theory than evolution is, thus would not cover everything that evolution would.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe creationism is a narrower theory than evolution is, thus would not cover everything that evolution would.

It is the creationists who claim that they interpret DNA evidence. However, their claims fall flat when faced with real DNA evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is the creationists who claim that they interpret DNA evidence. However, their claims fall flat when faced with real DNA evidence.

So the people that advocate the theory often overestimate how much it can cover. It happens. Using a theory wrong doesn't make said theory wrong, just the people doing it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the people that advocate the theory often overestimate how much it can cover. It happens. Using a theory wrong doesn't make said theory wrong, just the people doing it.

My point is that they never used it to begin with. When people claim that creationism is a different interpretation they don't understand what an interpretation is. They think that a faith based belief is an interpretation of evidence. It isn't. It is often just the opposite.

 

[PsychoSarah]

My point is that they never used it to begin with. When people claim that creationism is a different interpretation they don't understand what an interpretation is. They think that a faith based belief is an interpretation of evidence. It isn't. It is often just the opposite.

Ah, but as I said, the ignorance of the person using the theory doesn't make the theory wrong, it makes it used incorrectly. It wouldn't matter if everyone that used the theory was using it wrong; it wouldn't make the theory wrong.

Don't act like evolution as a theory is not prone to misuse, even by those that advocate it

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, but as I said, the ignorance of the person using the theory doesn't make the theory wrong, it makes it used incorrectly.

It does make them wrong when they claim that they have a different interpretation.

Don't act like evolution as a theory is not prone to misuse, even by those that advocate it

When scientists claim that they can interpret data using the theory of evolution, they can actually back it up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does make them wrong when they claim that they have a different interpretation.


When scientists claim that they can interpret data using the theory of evolution, they can actually back it up.

Wrong, yes, but not because creationism is wrong.

Sure, better minds went to that position, more can use that theory effectively. However, since variants of creationism do not make themselves incompatible with evolution, the validity of evolution is irrelevant.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong, yes, but not because creationism is wrong.

As viewed by creationists, creationism is unfalsifiable. It can't be wrong, no matter what the evidence is. That's why it isn't an interpretation.

Sure, better minds went to that position, more can use that theory effectively. However, since variants of creationism do not make themselves incompatible with evolution, the validity of evolution is irrelevant.

It is the creationists who are saying that evolution is incompatible with creationism.