Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[Oncedeceived]

That's a false dichotomy.

Indeed it is, but I actually took the quote from a site that was discussing the multiverse. Bernard Carr: "On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

Even if ideas about the multiverse are shown to be complete bunk, god - and certainly not any particular version of god - does not win by default. If we have two competing ideas and one is shown to be false, we don't automatically assume the other idea is correct.

Agreed.

You still have to build support for the other idea. If we have two suspects we think murdered someone, and we show that one of the suspects could not have committed the crime, we do not automatically throw the other suspect in prison simply because we can't imagine anyone else that could have done it. We still have to build a case against the other suspect. Such is the case, here.

Agreed.

What scientist ever said such a thing? Even if God does exist, the natural world is still a real thing that can be studied, so science has a place. On top of that, there are many, many religious scientists in all manner of fields, probably more so than there are atheistic ones.

Once again I agree.

 

[nuttypiglet]

How do yo figure that? Do we need to understand photosynthesis (how sugar is created) to understand how candy is made from sugar? Knowing where sugar comes from is useful, but we could still make candy from sugar if it were mined like salt. The chemistry is important, the origin is not

sugar? how on earth did abiogenesis get into sugar?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Nope. The theory of evolutionary common descent is independent of the theory of earthly abiogenesis (I assume you mean earthly, since that's what I meant, but given how much less likely extraterrestrial biogenesis for earthly life is it doesn't meaningfully affect the argument anyway). Life need not have had genesis at all (that is, it could have existed for an infinitely long time) for the theory of common descent to accurately model the observed evidence. Similarly, earthly abiogenesis need not have resulted in the hierarchical pattern we observe, since it could have happened multiple times, creating more than one nested hierarchy, or perhaps even a "fused" hierarchy. However, without conflating the two concepts, I see no reason to pretend that there are other similarly plausible falsifiable alternative models that would explain the origin of life on Earth. Based on our current knowledge of physics, biochemistry, and the Earth's geological history, there aren't.

Edit: Actually they are not quite "independent" due to their behavior in the case where there has never been life on Earth. I will leave it up to the individual to decide whether this case is worthy of his or her attention.

Well yes there are a number of reasons Abiogenesis could topple evolution. If life was seeded here by a race of beings more intelligent than ourselves, then they may have interfered several times, giving the impression of evolution. Maybe they didn't like dinosaurs anymore and killed them off with a virus, but used their DNA to make something new. It's not so far fetched, give it a while longer and humans will be doing this anyway. Perhaps we will engineer life forms for Mars and observe their development, making alterations along the way. Maybe we will one day put some of our own cells on many asteroids in the hope they will land on other worlds, hopefully to find a compatible one.

 

[lasthero]

If life was seeded here by a race of beings more intelligent than ourselves, then they may have interfered several times, giving the impression of evolution. Maybe they didn't like dinosaurs anymore and killed them off with a virus, but used their DNA to make something new. It's not so far fetched

But it's completely unfalsifiable, so what's your point?

 

[nuttypiglet]

But it's completely unfalsifiable, so what's your point?

COMPLETELY? REALLY? At least spend 2 minutes thinking about it.

 

[JWGU]

Well yes there are a number of reasons Abiogenesis could topple evolution.

Nope.

If life was seeded here by a race of beings more intelligent than ourselves, then they may have interfered several times, giving the impression of evolution.

In this scenario, common descent would not have been violated by the initial seeding of life (the earthly abiogenesis part, which incidentally does not happen when aliens are involved). It would have been violated by the subsequent interference.

Maybe they didn't like dinosaurs anymore and killed them off with a virus, but used their DNA to make something new.

We have plenty of geologic evidence for what really happened around that time period, and it wasn't just the dinosaurs who went extinct. Either way, this is either an unfalsifiable theory, or it is a falsifiable one that makes specific predictions about evidence that we should (or should not) see. It is that evidence that would then falsify common descent, not the initial seeding.

It's not so far fetched, give it a while longer and humans will be doing this anyway. Perhaps we will engineer life forms for Mars and observe their development, making alterations along the way. Maybe we will one day put some of our own cells on many asteroids in the hope they will land on other worlds, hopefully to find a compatible one.

How and why will we be doing this? Using what technology? Expansion into space doesn't make any sense.

 

[lasthero]

COMPLETELY? REALLY? At least spend 2 minutes thinking about it.

It is.

Let's say that the scenario you described actually happened. The aliens have structured it in such a way that it looks like normal evolution. Their technology is obviously far more advanced than anything we have currently. How would we ever go about falsifying what you propose? What test could we possibly run that would show life formed in such a way, and how would we even check it when we don't even know how the aliens did what they did?

 

[biggles53]

Well yes there are a number of reasons Abiogenesis could topple evolution. If life was seeded here by a race of beings more intelligent than ourselves, then they may have interfered several times, giving the impression of evolution. Maybe they didn't like dinosaurs anymore and killed them off with a virus, but used their DNA to make something new. It's not so far fetched, give it a while longer and humans will be doing this anyway. Perhaps we will engineer life forms for Mars and observe their development, making alterations along the way. Maybe we will one day put some of our own cells on many asteroids in the hope they will land on other worlds, hopefully to find a compatible one.

What you are positing here is that the process of evolution has been interrupted or interfered with, not that the process hasn't occurred.

And I see that you also slip into a common strategy of those who argue for the supernatural...you base your case on what is possible, rather than that which is probable...!

The scientific method ensures that probability is maximised as we move towards an explanation...your method maximises fantasy...

 

[biggles53]

It is.

Let's say that the scenario you described actually happened. The aliens have structured it in such a way that it looks like normal evolution. Their technology is obviously far more advanced than anything we have currently. How would we ever go about falsifying what you propose? What test could we possibly run that would show life formed in such a way, and how would we even check it when we don't even know how the aliens did what they did?

Silly boy........didn't you know that they masterminded their plan by using Russell's Teapot as a base.....!?

 

[driewerf]

That's why I said "scientists in general," as I don't know what they all think about creationism.

I don't think much scientists care about it atall. Creationism is mainly an American phenomenon. So not much European scientists even have to deal with it. And it focuses on the ToE, so outside biology, not a lot of scientists have to deal with it. Most chemists, mathematicians, climatologists, physicists etc can live without being bothered by it.

I know the unregenerate ones would disagree with it, but now I'm interested to what degree they disagree; viz., fairy tale, lie, myth, legend, parable, superstition, ignorance, whatever).

I'll have a go at this:
I consider Genesis a myth.

I consider that most professional creationists like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort are liars. They know they are wrong yet they go on.

I consider the average grass root creationist are ignorant on the subject of the ToE. They are artificially kept ignorant by the professional creationists, their pastors and their homeschooling parents.

Now, I don't put Genesis on a par with Humpty Dumpty or with Red Ridinghood (a true faiy tale). I put it on a par with the Gilgamesh Epos or Homer's Illiad.

 

[USincognito]

sugar? how on earth did abiogenesis get into sugar?

Via an analogy.

Read what he wrote one more time:

How do yo figure that? Do we need to understand photosynthesis (how sugar is created) to understand how candy is made from sugar? Knowing where sugar comes from is useful, but we could still make candy from sugar if it were mined like salt. The chemistry is important, the origin is not.​

It's an analogy that shows we don't need to understand a single thing about abiogenesis for evolution to work and for us to understand how it works.

 

[OllieFranz]

sugar? how on earth did abiogenesis get into sugar?

Perhaps if I expanded on my previous response:

Why would it? Why does the origin of life make or break evolution? We don't need to know how life began to see how existing populations evolve. Just like we don't need to know how photosynthesis works to make candy.​

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is mainly an American phenomenon. So not much European scientists even have to deal with it.

Why then does London have one of the largest mosques in Europe?

 

[rikerjoe]

Why then does London have one of the largest mosques in Europe?

What does that have to do with what you responded to??

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that have to do with what you responded to??

Don't lay creationism down at our doorstep as "mainly an American phenomenon," when Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in Europe.

I wonder who is more "creationist," America or England?

 

[driewerf]

If by fairy tale you mean simply a story or imaginary tale then the answer is yes.

The attention from the academic world is there only because creationism threatens the education of American young because creationism encourages ignorance, if it did not cause so much concern it would be as ignored as all of the other spin offs from the myriads of other religions are ignored, ignorance is not only infectious it is like water in that it always finds the easiest way out, that's why they say "ignorance is bliss".

I see this is your first post, 123blue.
on behalf of all of us, a most warm welcome.

 

[driewerf]

Why then does London have one of the largest mosques in Europe?

Because there are a lot of muslims is London?

 

[driewerf]

Don't lay creationism down at our doorstep as "mainly an American phenomenon," when Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in Europe.

I wonder who is more "creationist," America or England?

I don't think the islamic creationists weigh as heavy upon the British curriculums as the American (christian) creationists do in the US. So to answer you question, the US is more creationist.
At the moment of writing darwin's portret is still on the 10£ notes. In 2009 a 2£ coin was stamped featuring Darwin and his body hasn't still be removed from Westmisnter Cathedral. (You know, Westmisnter Cathedral where Darwin is burried with this ohter great scientist, Issac Newton.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Because there are a lot of muslims is London?

Ya -- imagine that!

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think the islamic creationists weigh as heavy upon the British curriculums as the American (christian) creationists do in the US. So to answer you question, the US is more creationist.
At the moment of writing darwin's portret is still on the 10£ notes. In 2009 a 2£ coin was stamped featuring Darwin and his body hasn't still be removed from Westmisnter Cathedral. (You know, Westmisnter Cathedral where Darwin is burried with this ohter great scientist, Issac Newton.)

Dear me.

I must have the wrong definition of "creationist/creationism" then, eh?