Let's say hypothetically, evolution is wrong...

[Modified Bear]

Does that instantly make creationism the only valid theory?

If you think so, why?

 

[Modified Bear]

No responses huh?

 

[selfinflikted]

Nullifying evolution would in no way make creationism more credible.

 

[Modified Bear]

Nullifying evolution would in no way make creationism more credible.

My point exactly

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Nullifying evolution would in no way make creationism more credible.

QFT.

Which is why it makes me laugh when creationists strawman ToE, then jump in with goddidit.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I think we get this same attitude for a lot of others things, too, like consciousness. People think "hey, neurology doesn't have all it's loose ends tied up, thus the mind must be supernatural." This false dichotomy is beyond irritating.

 

[Modified Bear]

I love how no creationists have responded yet

 

[selfinflikted]

I love how no creationists have responded yet

Unfortunately, I fear you may not get many creationist responses. But I think seeing as they percieve evolution to be the biggest threat to their beliefs that if evolution is ever falsified, then they feel can rest a bit easier in their beliefs. Though, this percieved threat really isn't, imo. Evolution could simply be a tool that god uses.

 

[Delphiki]

Because lots and lots of other believe it, therefore it's true by default.

There, I answered on their behalf.

 

[TheReasoner]

Does that instantly make creationism the only valid theory?

If you think so, why?

Creationism isn't a valid theory regardless, it's not testable. If evolution was wrong... Hypothetically... Well, of course that means there are a lot of the products we now enjoy every day that wouldn't be around. But let's say they didn't and evolution wasn't true, it's still not a valid theory because it doesn't adhere to the scientific principle.
It would need to be formulated in a fashion which is testable and falsifiable for it to qualify, then it needs to be rigorously tested over a long period of time by multiple people and be found to withstand this testing. If it did THAT it could be called a theory.

So, no. Removing evolution from the equation would not validate creationism at all.

 

[Upisoft]

Evolution could simply be a tool that god uses.

Not in the way they read their Bibles.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not in the way they read their Bibles.

Yes, but that's my point exactly! In light of new evidence, would that not demand a revision in the way the Bible is read? I would think so. And this is the crux. Somewhere, somehow, someone decided that religion must remain static. But that's not the way it should be - we learn new things all the time which should lead to modifying old themes to correspong with what we know. But sadly, it doesn't happen this way. And hence, the Clash of the Titans - Religion and Science.

 

[Upisoft]

Yes, but that's my point exactly! In light of new evidence, would that not demand a revision in the way the Bible is read? I would think so. And this is the crux. Somewhere, somehow, someone decided that religion must remain static. But that's not the way it should be - we learn new things all the time which should lead to modifying old themes to correspong with what we know. But sadly, it doesn't happen this way. And hence, the Clash of the Titans - Religion and Science.

The religion does not remain static. Only the minds of some people remain static.

 

[selfinflikted]

The religion does not remain static. Only the minds of some people remain static.

Isn't that the same thing? The religion is the people, afaic.

 

[Upisoft]

Isn't that the same thing? The religion is the people, afaic.

Yes, but people are born and die. The fact that some of them remain static within their life-time does not change the fact that religions change.

I think that those close-minded people also have an impact on the evolution of the Religions. Without them, there would be no debate here. People would not try to think and revise their own ideas.

Thus it is quite possible that some of them are actually non-believers that are playing a game, knowing that the result is worth it.

 

[Seamus Riley]

the question is valid so i won't spend a lot of time on how the questioner is obviously baiting a mudslinging match or how he seems to validate himself by periodically pointing out that a lack of a response after a few minutes here and there must mean the position he holds is the undefeated correct one.

like i said, the question is valid, and the answers thus far are very insightful...many claims made against the approach of creationists are right on. but look at it this way, you could just as easily juxtapose the subjects in the question and no evolution wouldn't stand based solely on unquestionable refuting of creation. it stands on the strength of its data. creationists would do well to learn this.

so what is creation science? creationism itself is not a science, but a theory that relies on all sciences, the theory itself stemming from the bible, which for the purpose of discussion we'll refer to as a history book. yes, it may be more than this, but what's important is that its not presented as a scientific journal as it is a historical text. furthermore the bible points to nature as evidence for god (and not necessarily evidence for or against evolution). i read this to mean that the natural sciences should be used to promote a scientific theory and that use of the bible alone to make similar conclusions requires faith. not a bad thing, especially since collective scientific knowledge can never be possessed by an individual and that we all live on faith of what is known, perhaps to similar degrees.

if creation science is the study of all natural sciences to support creation theory as presented in the bible, then data from the study of evolution is a part of that. i'm guessing that the original question was meant to bait young earth creationists, however, and i'd just have to say that young earth proponents do have a long way to go and need more time to study their data before presenting a fuller case. this is their fault more than anyone else's.

but lets entertain the question a little more. "evolution is wrong...creationism the only valid theory?" theory of what, i have to ask? how we explain the history and relationship of plants and animals or how we explain the origin of the universe? personally, i don't see these theories as necessarily diametrically opposed or that they even parallel each other as to explaining the same things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that instantly make creationism the only valid theory?

Creationism is not a theory -- it is an historical fact.

If you think so, why?

Sorry -- I don't qualify to answer, do I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, I fear you may not get many creationist responses.

How many do you need?

But I think seeing as they percieve evolution to be the biggest threat to their beliefs that if evolution is ever falsified, then they feel can rest a bit easier in their beliefs.

Evolution is not going to be falsified this side of the Rapture.

Evolution could simply be a tool that god uses.

That's pretty close -- change 'god' to 'Antichrist', and you got it.

And btw, if you think evolution is scientific, I'm still waiting for what would falsify it.

 

[Belk]

How many do you need?

Evolution is not going to be falsified this side of the Rapture.

That's pretty close -- change 'god' to 'Antichrist', and you got it.

And btw, if you think evolution is scientific, I'm still waiting for what would falsify it.

1. Descent from a Common Ancestor Requires certain Common Characteristics in the DNA of all Organisms on Earth
2. The “Nested Hierarchy” of living things required by common descent predicts common genetic characteristics above the DNA level
3. Transitional Fossils should appear in the fossil record in the proper chronological order and at the proper times.
4. Any Vestigial Organ should be similar to something that was functional in an ancestor.
5. Any Atavism should be similar to something that was functional in an ancestor.
6. Existing closely related current species should only be found geographically close to each other
7. Recently evolved animals should be only found in the geographic area close to their evolutionary ancestors based on the fossil record
8. Any genetic characteristic should be explicable in terms of genetic characteristics of evolutionary ancestors.
9. Molecular Similarities will be understandable due to common ancestry
10. Genetic change in irreversible so we should never see specific genetic characteristics reappearing based on identical genes

From Carumbas Blog: Things That Would Falsify Evolution

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Descent from a Common Ancestor Requires certain Common Characteristics in the DNA of all Organisms on Earth
2. The “Nested Hierarchy” of living things required by common descent predicts common genetic characteristics above the DNA level
3. Transitional Fossils should appear in the fossil record in the proper chronological order and at the proper times.
4. Any Vestigial Organ should be similar to something that was functional in an ancestor.
5. Any Atavism should be similar to something that was functional in an ancestor.
6. Existing closely related current species should only be found geographically close to each other
7. Recently evolved animals should be only found in the geographic area close to their evolutionary ancestors based on the fossil record
8. Any genetic characteristic should be explicable in terms of genetic characteristics of evolutionary ancestors.
9. Molecular Similarities will be understandable due to common ancestry
10. Genetic change in irreversible so we should never see specific genetic characteristics reappearing based on identical genes

From Carumbas Blog: Things That Would Falsify Evolution

Not one of those is specific, and can be interpreted otherwise -- (in my opinion).

Do you have something specific that will falsify the theory of evolution; like: 'rabbits in the preCambrian'?

If you don't, just keep yakking, so someone will eventually accuse me of hijacking this thread.