Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Mark Quayle]

you are the one who claimed that evolution has been falsified...can you back that claim up?

I understood him to say that it is not falsifiable.

 

[Fervent]

you are the one who claimed that evolution has been falsified...can you back that claim up?

I said it was not falsifiable, in that there is no possible way for it to be disproven. It will simply be infinitely modified as contradictory evidence compiles. Which is why there are multiple competing "theories of evolution."

 

[Quartermaine]

That wasn't my intent, but to highlight that whether "scientific" or not ID and creation are both theories, though not necessarily empirical.

proponents of ID call it a theory but it is not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

suffices for what?

To show that Theory is not only according to your, "Theories are based on evidence and observation and can be tested."

 

[coffee4u]

But is that the real definition which is what is being sought after will you help me ?

What do you mean by that? You want pitabread to help you against us scary creationists?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That wasn't my intent, but to highlight that whether "scientific" or not ID and creation are both theories, though not necessarily empirical.

Uh, yeah, but on this board, scientific or not is a legitimate demarcation in discussion. Non-scientific theories are not the topic here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You left out the majority of the definition. Why?

I notice you didn't answer the questions.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I understood him to say that is is not falsifiable.

Can you back that claim up?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can you back that claim up?

Yes. His subsequent post backs me very satisfactorily.

 

[Sabertooth]

Non-scientific theories are not the topic here.

The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,
not whether it satisfies the criteria for a "scientific" theory.

 

[Quartermaine]

I said it was not falsifiable, in that there is no possible way for it to be disproven. It will simply be infinitely modified as contradictory evidence compiles. Which is why there are multiple competing "theories of evolution."

Of course it could be disproved.

Show that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
Show that mutations do not occur.
Show that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
Show that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of changes that drive natural selection.
Show that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individual.
Find a fossilized poodle next to a t-Rex
Show a functional alternative mechanism that explains antibiotic resistance in germs
Find a life form that is unrelated to any other on the planet.
Find a life form that does not use DNA and RNA

 

[Bradskii]

What piece of evidence would prove it false?

From wiki:

(Evolution) is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Charles Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

And there's Haldane's comment that a rabbit fossil found in pre Cambrian rocks would certainly put a spanner in the works.

Now it's your turn. How can creationism be falsified?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,
not whether it satisfies the criteria for a "scientific" theory.

My bad. I get carried off on the sidelines a lot.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The OP is about whether YEC is compatible with intellectualism,
not whether it satisfies the criteria for a "scientific" theory.

OK, care to elaborate?

 

[Bradskii]

It would be interesting to see a survey looking at the degree of overlap between creationism and other anti-science/conspiratorial beliefs like:

• Climate change denial
• Covid virus conspiracies
• Covid vaccine conspiracies
• The Trump election conspiracy
• The Great Reset conspiracy/globalism
• The Critical Race Theory conspiracy
• The 4G conspiracy (is that still a thing?)
• The Great Gay conspiracy (to convert us all to gay)

I'm sure there are more.

OB

I was thinking of this only yesterday. How accurate a cold reading could you do on someone if you saw that he had a MAGA hat in the back of his car.

'I'm getting something from the spirit world. Someone with the initial B? A family member who has passed? They say that you don't believe in global warming. Is that right? And that you think that the evolutionary theory is an attempt to deny God. And...I think I see something about an injection of some sort? You are refusing an injection? Am I right? And she says, yes - you are right not to wear a mask.'

'Gee, Martha. How could he have possibly known all that?'

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I was thinking of this only yesterday. How accurate a cold reading could you do on someone if you saw that he had a MAGA hat in the back of his car.

'I'm getting something from the spirit world. Someone with the initial B? A family member who has passed? They say that you don't believe in global warming. Is that right? And that you think that the evolutionary theory is an attempt to deny God. And...I think I see something about an injection of some sort? You are refusing an injection? Am I right? And she says, yes - you are right not to wear a mask.'

'Gee, Martha. How could he have possibly known all that?'

How did he know her name was Martha?

 

[Mark Quayle]

• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

Begin with the lightning zap on the gelatinous foam, or whatever started the ball rolling.

 

[coffee4u]

Well first you probably need to demonstrate that the last several thousands of years of gained knowledge of the universe is actually irrational,

Showing you don't even understand the premise of creationism.

No one should be saying that all science is useless or always irrational. Science has given us many great things and is very useful. Would be nice if it wasn't so full of its own omnipotence though and realized it doesn't know everything and was open to other ideas.

What we are saying, or what I am saying, is this knowledge is being gained about the world as it is now. Not how it was.

We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.
science on the other hand won't have that, they believe what they see now is the key to the past. We say they have the wrong key.

and then it might be useful to demonstrate a god that could in fact make those thousands of years of observation irrational. In the mean time, I will not assume an irrational arbiter over whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

The thousands of years of observation are from the world we have now, not the world we lost. Only Adam and Eve were alive to experience the first world. It also changed not once but 3 times. Fall-flood-Tower of Babble.

We believe this because we believe God and his word.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

Begin with the lightning zap on the gelatinous foam, or whatever started the ball rolling.

Well let's start with the rate, and how do you know this?

Showing you don't even understand the premise of creationism.

No one should be saying that all science is useless or always irrational. Science has given us many great things and is very useful. Would be nice if it wasn't so full of its own omnipotence though and realized it doesn't know everything and was open to other ideas.

What we are saying, or what I am saying, is this knowledge is being gained about the world as it is now. Not how it was.

We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.
science on the other hand won't have that, they believe what they see now is the key to the past. We say they have the wrong key.
.



The thousands of years of observation are from the world we have now, not the world we lost. Only Adam and Eve were alive to experience the first world. It also changed not once but 3 times. Fall-flood-Tower of Babble.

We believe this because we believe God and his word.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Showing you don't even understand the premise of creationism.

No one should be saying that all science is useless or always irrational. Science has given us many great things and is very useful. Would be nice if it wasn't so full of its own omnipotence though and realized it doesn't know everything and was open to other ideas.

What we are saying, or what I am saying, is this knowledge is being gained about the world as it is now. Not how it was.

We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.
science on the other hand won't have that, they believe what they see now is the key to the past. We say they have the wrong key.



The thousands of years of observation are from the world we have now, not the world we lost. Only Adam and Eve were alive to experience the first world. It also changed not once but 3 times. Fall-flood-Tower of Babble.

We believe this because we believe God and his word.

I was questioning his use of the word irrational which he appears to be using in an atypical sense.