The Theory Of Creation

[Kyrisch]

If the Scientific Method was around a thousand years ago, the idea of Creation may have been called a Scientific Theory. The main reason it is does not carry said appellation at present is because, due to its interpretive nature, it cannot be falsified (e.g. when evidence came about that the Earth was in fact much much older than originally thought, OEC was spawned).

With scientific theories today, one of two things can occur. Evidence can either falsify a theory by contradicting a prediction made thereby, or evidence can verify a theory by fulfilling another prediction. Since Creationism cannot be falsified, in order to talk about the Theory of Creation (although falsification is actually a criterion for a Scientific Theory we will ignore that for now for the sake of this discussion), we must focus on the predictions it may make.

Now the competing theory, the Theory of Evolution, among countless other things has predicted the nested hierarchy of life, common genomes (as in the strikingly similar code comprising human beings and chimps), and vesitigial structures (although these are, in scientific method jargon, technically postdictions, we will also ignore that for now). If you are telling me that you want Creation to be held to the same standard as Evolution (e.g. taught in schools), what predictions has Creation made that have been verified by evidence?

 

[Assyrian]

Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker What is Creation Science, 1982 revised 1987, p.221

The Creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve fromother type at all. Consequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

Gish, D. T. (1973) Evolution? The Fossils Say No! p57

The conversion of an invertebrate into a vertebrate, a fish into a tetrapod with feet and legs, or a non-flying animals into a flying animal are a few of examples of changes that would require a revolution in structure. Such transformations should provide readily recognizable transitional series in the fossil record if they occurred through evolutionary processes. On the other hand, if the creation model is the true model, it is at just such boundaries that the absence of transitional forms would be most evident.

The opposite is true at the amphibian-reptilian and reptilian-mammalian boundaries, particularly he former. While it is feasible to distinguish between living reptiles and amphibians on the basis of skeletal features, they are much more readily distinguishable by means of their soft parts and, in fact,, the major defining characteristic which separates reptiles from amphibians is the possession by the reptile, in contrast to the amphibian, of the amniotic egg.

p 58 (p 80 in some editions)
Many of the diagnostic features of mammals, of course, reside in their soft anatomy or physiology. These include their mode of reproduction, warm bloodedness, mode of breathing due to possession of a diaphragm, suckling of the young, and possession of hair.

The two most easily distinguishable osteological differences between reptiles and mammals, however, have never been bridged by transitional series. All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. In some fossil reptiles the number and size of the bones of the lower jaw are reduced compared to living reptiles. Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes.

There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear.

oops

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

 

[Mallon]

If the Scientific Method was around a thousand years ago, the idea of Creation may have been called a Scientific Theory. The main reason it is does not carry said appellation at present is because, due to its interpretive nature, it cannot be falsified (e.g. when evidence came about that the Earth was in fact much much older than originally thought, OEC was spawned).

With scientific theories today, one of two things can occur. Evidence can either falsify a theory by contradicting a prediction made thereby, or evidence can verify a theory by fulfilling another prediction. Since Creationism cannot be falsified, in order to talk about the Theory of Creation (although falsification is actually a criterion for a Scientific Theory we will ignore that for now for the sake of this discussion), we must focus on the predictions it may make.

Now the competing theory, the Theory of Evolution, among countless other things has predicted the nested hierarchy of life, common genomes (as in the strikingly similar code comprising human beings and chimps), and vesitigial structures (although these are, in scientific method jargon, technically postdictions, we will also ignore that for now). If you are telling me that you want Creation to be held to the same standard as Evolution (e.g. taught in schools), what predictions has Creation made that have been verified by evidence?

You speak as though evolution and creation are necessarily in opposition to each other -- a position you haven't justified. It is entirely possible for something to be both created AND evolved.

When you refer to the "Creation Theory", are you referring specifically to creation ex nihilo? It is important not to conflate anti-evolutionary creationism with the doctrine of creation.

 

[Kyrisch]

You speak as though evolution and creation are necessarily in opposition to each other -- a position you haven't justified. It is entirely possible for something to be both created AND evolved.

When you refer to the "Creation Theory", are you referring specifically to creation ex nihilo? It is important not to conflate anti-evolutionary creationism with the doctrine of creation.

Creation ex nihilo is what is described in the Old Testament and any different opinion is an interpretation rather than a literal belief.

And to Assyrian:

Consequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found.

The fossil record is incomplete. Fossil formation is a delicate and, actually, quite rare of a process. So, while many transitional fossils may be missing, certainly not all traces are gone.

Following strict rules of logic, while Creation states that none of these things will EVER be found, and uses the absence of SPECIFIC links to back this up, that claim can be falsified by identifying a SINGLE transitional fossil.

At this point, enter TIKTAALIK, one of my favourites:

Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish from the late Devonian period, with many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals). It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, which led to the evolution of amphibians. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada.

This cute little four-legged fish is featured in wikipedia's LIST OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS which is some fifty strong. Since I cannot yet post links, I hope you deem it worthy to take a look at the article.

 

[Mallon]

Creation ex nihilo is what is described in the Old Testament and any different opinion is an interpretation rather than a literal belief.

Not sure what a "literal belief" is, but if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1, I think you'll find that it does not describe creation ex nihilo. The waters were already there when God started (a motif common to many ANE creation stories).
Regardless, evolution is still not contrary to the doctrine of creation. So are you picking on a specific subset of that doctrine? If so, it would help if you would clarify which.

 

[Kyrisch]

Not sure what a "literal belief" is, but if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1, I think you'll find that it does not describe creation ex nihilo. The waters were already there when God started (a motif common to many ANE creation stories).
Regardless, evolution is still not contrary to the doctrine of creation. So are you picking on a specific subset of that doctrine? If so, it would help if you would clarify which.

You are avoiding the point of the thread. The Theory of Evolution does NOT include the theory of abiogenesis. I am speaking of Creation as the creation by God of static species as opposed to the dynamic aspect of the Theory of Evolution. Different stories of Creation have no bearing. My challenge is to all of them.

And by the way, stepwise creation is still ex nihilo (from nothing) because each of the things were created from nothing, not from the thing created just before.

 

[Mallon]

You are avoiding the point of the thread.

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this thread is.

The Theory of Evolution does NOT include the theory of abiogenesis.

I never equated the two.

I am speaking of Creation as the creation by God of static species as opposed to the dynamic aspect of the Theory of Evolution. Different stories of Creation have no bearing. My challenge is to all of them.

So your challenge is to anti-evolutionary creationists who espouse the de novo creation of species. Your issue is not with the doctrine of creation, but with a specific subset of those who deny evolution. Just want to be clear about that.

And by the way, stepwise creation is still ex nihilo (from nothing) because each of the things were created from nothing, not from the thing created just before.

Are you referring to evolutionary creation? Because this is not at all what EC proposes.

 

[Kyrisch]

So your challenge is to anti-evolutionary creationists who espouse the de novo creation of species. Your issue is not with the doctrine of creation, but with a specific subset of those who deny evolution. Just want to be clear about that.

No, my issue is with Creation and how it is falsified by the evidence pertinent to the few verifiable predictions it makes.

Are you referring to evolutionary creation? Because this is not at all what EC proposes.

That is not what I meant by stepwise, and this has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

The purpose of this thread was clearly spelled out:

What verifiable predictions do ANY of the 'Theories' of Creation make?

 

[Mallon]

No, my issue is with Creation and how it is falsified by the evidence pertinent to the few verifiable predictions it makes.

My point is that falsifying the de novo creation of species is not the same as falsifying the doctrine of creation nor the existence of a creator.
Your position is akin to falsifying Lammarckism and then claiming evolution doesn't happen. It's a bogus conclusion based on a conflation of terms.

What verifiable predictions do ANY of the 'Theories' of Creation make?

The Bible says that we come to know God as the Creator through faith (Deut 6:16), so I don't know that there any coherent scientific theories that will convince you once and for all that the universe is a creation (what good would faith be, otherwise?). Regardless, I think the strong anthropic principle and the mystery of the Big Bang provide good arguments for a creator.

 

[Kyrisch]

My point is that falsifying the de novo creation of species is not the same as falsifying the doctrine of creation nor the existence of a creator.
Your position is akin to falsifying Lammarckism and then claiming evolution doesn't happen. It's a bogus conclusion based on a conflation of terms.

The Bible says that we come to know God as the Creator through faith (Deut 6:16), so I don't know that there any coherent scientific theories that will convince you once and for all that the universe is a creation (what good would faith be, otherwise?). Regardless, I think the strong anthropic principle and the mystery of the Big Bang provide good arguments for a creator.

This is not the point of the thread. I understand that most of the idea of Creation cannot be proven, but in order for it to be given the same respect as Evolution (e.g. taught in schools) it needs to be a coherent theory that makes predictions. I did not intend to falsify anything, I'm beyond that; I understand that Creation is not falsifiable. I am simply asking for a prediction that the 'Theory' makes, and there is none.

Please stay on topic; 'good arguments' are NOT predictions. Or even postdictions.

 

[Mallon]

I understand that Creation is not falsifiable. I am simply asking for a prediction that the 'Theory' makes, and there is none.

You're contradicting yourself. If you understand that the doctrine of creation is not falsifiable, then there is no prediction it can make that can be falsified.

I realize I'm being a pain in the butt about all this, but you need to be specific about what you're referring to and to whom you're addressing it. If it's young earth creationists you're looking to pick on (since they're largely the ones who want equal time in the classroom) you might try addressing them directly, rather than creationists as a whole.

 

[gluadys]

No, my issue is with Creation and how it is falsified by the evidence pertinent to the few verifiable predictions it makes.



That is not what I meant by stepwise, and this has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

The purpose of this thread was clearly spelled out:

What verifiable predictions do ANY of the 'Theories' of Creation make?

Well a prediction of evolutionary creation is that the predictions of the theory of evolution will be consistently supported by evidence.

Does that help?

 

[artybloke]

I understand that most of the idea of Creation cannot be proven, but in order for it to be given the same respect as Evolution (e.g. taught in schools)

I don't know of a single evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist that wants Creation taught in science class; though we see no reason why the Doctrine of Creation can't be taught in religion class.

 

[Kyrisch]

Well a prediction of evolutionary creation is that the predictions of the theory of evolution will be consistently supported by evidence.

Does that help?

No, because evolutionary creationism is not, strictly speaking, creation; it is more so of a guiding. I am speaking towards the 'theories' that stem from Genesis to any literal extent.

 

[Kyrisch]

I don't know of a single evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist that wants Creation taught in science class; though we see no reason why the Doctrine of Creation can't be taught in religion class.

I know of quite a few. And predictions are still very important if one wants it to hold up at all against conflicting scientific theories.

 

[gluadys]

No, because evolutionary creationism is not, strictly speaking, creation; it is more so of a guiding. I am speaking towards the 'theories' that stem from Genesis to any literal extent.

That is because evolution is not "strictly speaking" creation. Evolution assumes the existence of life. It does not address the origin of life.

Evolutionary creationists do believe God created life. They do not necessarily believe that God directly guided evolution. Some do and some don't.

 

[shernren]

Let's just take a step back. Kyrisch, could you define the term "creation" as you are using it? In particular, what exclusive alternatives to "creation" are there (i.e. what could you believe in such a way that it would be logically inconsistent to believe in "creation" at the same time), and why are they exclusive alternatives?

 

[Kyrisch]

Creation as what is literally written in Genesis, Creation sans evolution, et cetera. My challenge is what verifiable predictions do these 'theories' make?. I fail to see why specific theories are necessary to be named... Any theory, any prediction is all I am asking for (maybe I would have gotten one already if there were any).

 

[Mick116]

What verifiable predictions do ANY of the 'Theories' of Creation make?

Here's a prediction of creationism (broadly defined): if there truly exists a complex, intelligent and moral Creator, there should probably arise (somewhere in the cosmos) complex, intelligent and moral forms of life.

Well, humanity is certainly complex... arguably intelligent... and occasionally moral... oh dear, I fear I've just falsified creationism



Seriously though, it is difficult to make predictions about how or if God created, because it is difficult to observe God with our present technology. I suppose the existence of unexplainable, "supernatural" phenomona might be predicted (or "postdicted") in a universe consisting of somewhat more than the natural (i.e. the spiritual)... but this comes a bit too close to a "god of the gaps" line of thought.

When it's all said and done, creationism as a philosophy falls outside the realm of contemporary science. Science cannot answer all of our questions, as much as we'd like it to.

 

[juvenissun]

If the Scientific Method was around a thousand years ago, the idea of Creation may have been called a Scientific Theory. The main reason it is does not carry said appellation at present is because, due to its interpretive nature, it cannot be falsified

Why should truth be falsified?