Creationism and evolution.

[AV1611VET]

'Darwinism' is a loaded term. You may as well refer to gravity as 'Newtonism', relativity as 'Einsteinism' or electromagnetics as 'Amperism'.

I'm sure Darwin didn't mind.

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860. It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism.

SOURCE

 

[justlookinla]

Interesting, do I take your word that evolution is not based on the scientific method, or that of 100,000s of qualified scientists, the entirety of the academic establishment etc that it is.

The theory of evolution is a theory just like any other, it is not athiestic, or theistic and as has been stated millions of religious people recognise this fact.

All you have to do is present evidence, based on the scientific method, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from a single life form of long long ago in order to support the Darwinist claims. And yes, Darwinism and it's position on how humanity was created is inherently atheistic.....no God needed, wanted or allowed in the view.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If everything screams intelligent design, why can no one provide a scientific definition of what design is and or provide a test to determine when it exists and when it doesn't exist?

Design can be defined, but not to the satisfaction of science. It seems to me that even atoms demonstrate design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course you would never for one second think that you should find out what "Falsifiable" means, it might cause you to learn things you would rather not know which in turn could damage what you want to believe.
That I suppose is why you are a creationist, you don't understand something so you go for the easiest thing you can understand, it's a childish way to think but completely understandable, a kind of imagined bliss through forced ignorance.

Every definition I've read says the same thing; 'if it cannot be proven false, it cannot be true'. Very confusing.

 

[justlookinla]

Design can be defined, but not to the satisfaction of science. It seems to me that even atoms demonstrate design.

When someone claims illusion of design, then that person has defined design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Every definition I've read says the same thing; 'if it cannot be proven false, it cannot be true'. Very confusing.

A better definition is "if it can explain any possible evidence, then it explains none of it". Let's use DNA fingerprinting as an example. If the forensic expert testified that the suspect would have been a match no matter what the DNA sequences were for the DNA found at the crime scene, would you consider that a valid way of determining guilt?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When someone claims illusion of design, then that person has defined design.

Falsifiability is a fairly recent scientific concept isn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A better definition is "if it can explain any possible evidence, then it explains none of it". Let's use DNA fingerprinting as an example. If the forensic expert testified that the suspect would have been a match no matter what the DNA sequences were for the DNA found at the crime scene, would you consider that a valid way of determining guilt?

I don't quite follow this.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't quite follow this.

A better example is the old game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose". That isn't a real game. If any possible outcome is consistent with an explanation then you don't have an explanation. Real explanations should make predictions of what should AND SHOULD NOT happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

Falsifiability is a fairly recent scientific concept isn't it?

It began with Francis Bacon's scientific method quite a long time ago:

"Bacon's induction was construed and conceived as an instrument or method of discovery. Above all, his emphasis on negative instances for the procedure of induction itself can claim a high importance with regard to knowledge acquisition and has been acclaimed as an innovation by scholars of our time. Some have detected in Bacon a forerunner of Karl Popper in respect of the method of falsification."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

 

[bhsmte]

Design can be defined, but not to the satisfaction of science. It seems to me that even atoms demonstrate design.

Then design as the ID believers discuss it, is not science.

Which would make it a faith belief and no problem with faith beliefs, if they are acknowledged as such.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Every definition I've read says the same thing; 'if it cannot be proven false, it cannot be true'. Very confusing.

Then you must remain as you are.

As the old song goes, 'Well if you don't know then I aint a gonna tell ya cos from now on it's up to you buddy'.

 

[MikeEnders]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?

If it requires none then why are you here daily with others trying to defend it? IF it needs none you should be somewhere else than in this thread and why do atheist continue to moan that the populace still has huge chunks that don't adhere to it?

defending something you claim needs no defense is self defeating to the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it requires none then why are you here daily with others trying to defend it? IF it needs none you should be somewhere else than in this thread and why do atheist continue to moan that the populace still has huge chunks that don't adhere to it?

What we moan about is when creationists try to ruin the science education of children in the name of a religion. It's like watching the muslim extremists tear down beautiful artwork.

We have already had the scientific debate. Creationism got creamed. The only real debate is whether we want to stop teaching our children science because it conflicts with what they are taught in Sunday School.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then design as the ID believers discuss it, is not science.

I have no problem with that.

Which would make it a faith belief and no problem with faith beliefs, if they are acknowledged as such.

My 'belief' in design has nothing to do with faith or religion. It's merely a conclusion base on my observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

My 'belief' in design has nothing to do with faith or religion. It's merely an observation.

It is a subjective observation. Also, you believe the Christian God did it because of your religious beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

I have no problem with that.



My 'belief' in design has nothing to do with faith or religion. It's merely an observation.

Fine, you are certainly entitled to your personal observations.

 

[justlookinla]

Falsifiability is a fairly recent scientific concept isn't it?

I'm not sure.

 

[Gene2memE]

Experimental falsification in science dates back to Galileo. Given that Galileo is considered the father of modern scientific thought, the concept of falsifiability in science is as old as the concept of science itself.

If you look at the history of the philosophy of science, modern conception of falsifiability was born in the mid 18th century by British and German philosophers, then abandoned for idealism. It was picked up in again in the mid 19th century through early 20th century by various empiricists, developed most rigorously by Karl Popper through the late 1930s, somewhat re-developed again by Thomas Khun in the early 1960s and then batted back and forth over the rest of the 1960s and much of the 1970s.

History always makes for interesting reading, doesn't it.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm sure Darwin didn't mind.SOURCE

Do you read your sources closely?

From the wiki link:

"The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism."

Like I said, a loaded term.

If you want to debate 19th century models of evolutionary thought, fine. But the world and the actual discussion has moved on, to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which includes areas Darwin could not even dream of when he proposed his explanations of the facts.