Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

[HARK!]

Then hydrogen and oxygen coming together to make water must be a complete mystery to you.

Not at all; but that's irrelevant.

 

[HARK!]

Yes, it does appear so, but it hardly matters. It is nit-picking when set against the broader, convincing evidence for biological evolution.

In order for evolution to occur; there must first be life. To this day no one has observed a new life form magically popping out of a wet rock.

I view this as an important detail; if we want to view this from a scientific perspective.

 

[MIDutch]

Yes, it does appear so, but it hardly matters. It is nit-picking when set against the broader, convincing evidence for biological evolution.

Not true, actually.

Spontaneous generation is basically a couple of fancy words for "poof, and then magic happened", which may be fine for fairy tales and bronze age mythology, but does not describe the work scientists have been doing on abiogenesis the last 40 years or so.

OTOH the steps that have been demonstrated by scientists on the path from "rocks" to life all depend on simple chemistry and physics, chemicals and elements coming together in well known and well understood reactions. Most of the work so far, obviously, has been done in universities and research laboratories with the results being published in scientific journals, most of which are propbably too technical for the scientific layman (like me), but they can be found with a little bit of diligence and a good internet browser.

 

[MIDutch]

Not at all; but that's irrelevant.

Hardly since abiogenesis is just chemistry and physics.

 

[MIDutch]

In order for evolution to occur; there must first be life. To this day no one has observed a new life form magically popping out of a wet rock.

I view this as an important detail; if we want to view this from a scientific perspective.

And if that does ever happen, then creationists will shout "viola! creationism!".

IOW creationists will claim victory no matter what scientific evidence for abiogenesis and evolution is presented to them.

 

[HARK!]

Spontaneous generation is basically a couple of fancy words for "poof, and then magic happened", which may be fine for fairy tales and bronze age mythology, but does not describe the work scientists have been doing on abiogenesis the last 40 years or so.

Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Abiogenesis has not been observed. If someone told you that it has; he's propagating a myth.

 

[HARK!]

Hardly since abiogenesis is just chemistry and physics.

Abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated.

Chemical reactions have been demonstrated; but let's not conflate the two.

It's fallacious to say that because water and rocks exist; that life magically popped out of wet rocks. It's known as a bare assertion fallacy.

 

[HARK!]

And if that does ever happen, then creationists will shout "viola! creationism!".

Big IF. For how many decades have scientists been testing this failed hypothesis.

 

[MIDutch]

Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Abiogenesis has not been observed. If someone told you that it has; he's propagating a myth.

No one has ever claimed that it has.

What has been claimed is that many, if not most, of the steps in abiogenesis, formation of complex organic compounds necessary for life from simpler organic chemicals, formation of cell-like encapsulating wall structures, self-replication, self-organization, etc. have already been replicated in the laboratory, and some have been observed in nature.

 

[HARK!]

No one has ever claimed that it has.

What has been claimed is that many, if not most, of the steps in abiogenesis, formation of complex organic compounds necessary for life from simpler organic chemicals, formation of cell-like encapsulating wall structures, self-replication, self-organization, etc. have already been replicated in the laboratory, and some have been observed in nature.

Proof?

Please enumerate all of the steps in this process that has neither been observed, nor tested, nor repeated.

 

[MIDutch]

Big IF. For how many decades have scientists been testing this failed hypothesis.

How long did it take to get humans to the moon? How long did it take to cure cancer? How long did it take to find that big wooden barge on that mountain the Bible identifies as it's resting place?

The answers are: 1) most all of human existence, 2) still working on it, 3) forever, since the barge never existed.

Just because something takes a long time for science to figure out (it has only been a few decades after all) doesn't mean it's a "failed hypothesis".

 

[HARK!]

Just because something takes a long time for science to figure out (it has only been a few decades after all) doesn't mean it's a "failed hypothesis".

The fact that this purported process hasn't been figured out, let alone demonstrated; demonstrates that those who claim this process to have occurred, don't know what they're talking about

 

[TLK Valentine]

Abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated.

Chemical reactions have been demonstrated; but let's not conflate the two.

It's fallacious to say that because water and rocks exist; that life magically popped out of wet rocks. It's known as a bare assertion fallacy.

How are you defining "life"?

 

[HARK!]

How are you defining "life"?

There are many aspects to that definition; but a key aspect is the ability to procreate.

Can you draw a distinction between procreation and a chemical reaction?

Do you believe that life is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

 

[Whyayeman]

There will be no agreement here, surprise, surprise! And the repetitiveness has become dull.

Perhaps the discussion could now move on to why the Arkansas education authority tried to put creationism into the school curriculum. There is nothing of the scientific about it; I think it properly belongs to religious instruction.

It is the proper business of the churches to instruct their congregations, not the work of statutory secular organisations. Am I wrong to suggest that the real agenda here is to slip religious instruction where it is not allowed under the American Constitution?

 

[durangodawood]

In order for evolution to occur; there must first be life. To this day no one has observed a new life form magically popping out of a wet rock.

I view this as an important detail; if we want to view this from a scientific perspective.

The strong evidence for biological evolution would remain if we discovered either that God made the first life forms or if their emergence was pure chemistry.

 

[HARK!]

There will be no agreement here, surprise, surprise! And the repetitiveness has become dull.

Perhaps the discussion could now move on to why the Arkansas education authority tried to put creationism into the school curriculum. There is nothing of the scientific about it; I think it properly belongs to religious instruction.

It is the proper business of the churches to instruct their congregations, not the work of statutory secular organisations. Am I wrong to suggest that the real agenda here is to slip religious instruction where it is not allowed under the American Constitution?

What distinction would you draw between religion and Secular Humanism.

 

[HARK!]

The strong evidence for biological evolution would remain if we discovered either that God made the first life forms or if their emergence was pure chemistry.

The evidence for macroevolution, in absence of observation, is reduced to speculation.

 

[durangodawood]

The evidence for macroevolution, in absence of observation, is reduced to speculation.

Thats completely false. Direct observation is not required for strong evidence. This is a general principle, not limited to the study of biological history..

 

[HARK!]

Thats completely false. Direct observation is not required for strong evidence. This is a general principle, not limited to the study of biological history..

Observation is essential in science.