What's your view?

[thegandyman]

Ah. Now we're talking. Yes, that is true. Plenty of things have been falsified before. And if we are to bring the big guns on deck we can start discussing scientific philosophy and epistemology if you want. But that can get a little... Heavy and have little relevance I think.

How can we say that we now know something? Well, if I am to talk to fellow students or professors I use different language than I do here. We speak of theories and hypothesis and the like. I would not say we know this or that. Certainly not in a paper. But that is because scientific lingo is very different.

Evolution is, when you speak of it to people who are not scientists an incontrovertible fact. This is not because we can describe every step that has happened before or predict future evolution with great accuracy. We can't. But we still know the basic stuff. We can say the following with extreme certainty: Evolution occurs. And We are the product of evolution.

Even if we change the theory completely that will still be true. We may have misunderstood this or that, or new evidence may come to light. But those basics remain. It's a little like Newton's theory of gravity did not change the fact that if you throw a stone up it will fall down. Neither did relativity or quantum mechanics. Even if all three radically changed physics.
That evolution happens is known. What evolution is and the specifics concerning the mechanisms and finer detail, that can, has and will change. Not totally - at least probably not - but our understanding of it will -heh- evolve.

Also. Looking at my posts I see I may appear arrogant. Sorry about that. A character flaw I fear :/

Well, we all have flaws. Hahahaha. It's ok. I like your way of approaching things though. I get a little frustrated by both sides at times. Those that want to take Genesis as a science textbook and those that don't want to admit that there are any flaws in evolution. That's why I think it's important to have discussions about things. Of course, many evolutionists are turned off by a discussion if they found out a person is a creationist that is trying to disprove evolution. It's funny, when I was in college and considered myself an atheist, I questioned by science teachers about things all the time. They never had any problem answering them or even saying "I don't know." I guess I didn't approach it as "the Bible says this, so this can't be right." I respect everyone's point of view.

 

[acropolis]

When somebody states "evolution is a science fact" does it ever bother you or make you wonder about the other long accepted theories of science that have been discounted: geocentricism, static state universe, spontaneous generation, etc?

Again, I'm not stating which side I believe in yet. Just a question.

Evolution is one of the most robust scientific theories in existence so I'm not too concerned.

Even if there is a better explanation for why hereditary traits are passed along, that won't change the fact that they are, and that creatures change as a result. Similarly, the Ptolemaic model of geocentrism still had the planets moving in basically the correct places, it just didn't have the correct explanation for why they took the paths they did.

True, but in pretty much every creation story, the current earth and creatures appeared fully formed. Plus, you don't have anybody trying to scientifically prove that the Sumerian creation story is accurate.

The point is it's not just two sides, but many thousands of sides, some of which are scientific narratives having evidence to back them up and the rest are creation myths from various religions.

There are a few broad categories of creation myths. Only a minority of those stories fit the bill for a fully formed earth. There's no reason for anyone trying to educate students about how the world works to present those stories as anything other than what they are: myth. If someone believes in a particular god or gods then they can learn about whatever myth is attached to those deities from their place of worship.

 

[thegandyman]

There are a few broad categories of creation myths. Only a minority of those stories fit the bill for a fully formed earth. There's no reason for anyone trying to educate students about how the world works to present those stories as anything other than what they are: myth. If someone believes in a particular god or gods then they can learn about whatever myth is attached to those deities from their place of worship.

Well, I'm not advocating that creation should be taught in schools. After all, if we started teaching creation, then whose creation would we teach? Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, etc? You couldn't possibly teach them all.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, I'm not advocating that creation should be taught in schools. After all, if we started teaching creation, then whose creation would we teach? Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, etc? You couldn't possibly teach them all.

Aye. It belongs at university level religion history I think. Perhaps one could touch upon them in a highschool religion class. Just to avoid confusion and myth propagation. It is a little sad how many believe weird things such as the church believing the world was flat during the middle ages.

Anyway. It has no room at all in the science classroom. Neither this nor ID. Nor an anti-theistic explanation of course. Empiricism has it's arena in the science classroom. Not wishy washy opinion.
*harrumph*

 

[thegandyman]

So here's another question for the proponents of ID. If you can scientifically prove the need for a designer (or creator), can you also scientifically prove that there isn't a designer?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So here's another question for the proponents of ID. If you can scientifically prove the need for a designer (or creator), can you also scientifically prove that there isn't a designer?

This is what distinguishes ID/creo as a religious dogma rather than scientific model, as there is no way to falsify it.

Bottom line: Things look really complicated and we don't know everything about it yet - goddidit.

 

[thegandyman]

This is what distinguishes ID/creo as a religious dogma rather than scientific model, as there is no way to falsify it.

Bottom line: Things look really complicated and we don't know everything about it yet - goddidit.

So I'm guessing you're not an ID proponent. That's fine if that's your view, but I would really like to hear from someone that is on this question. It's easy for someone that doesn't believe in one point of view to say "it's no good." Although I do agree in the dangers of the "God of the gaps" theories. Can't explain it, God did it. Then if we find out how it can be explained, it seems we don't need God to explain anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

So here's another question for the proponents of ID. If you can scientifically prove the need for a designer (or creator), can you also scientifically prove that there isn't a designer?

Science has started proving things now, have they? when did that start?

 

[AV1611VET]

Bottom line: Things look really complicated and we don't know everything about it yet - goddidit.

Ya -- that is the bottom line; but long before we take you there, we tell you Who did it, how it was done, when it was done, where it was done, what order it was done in, how long it took to do it, why it took that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- even naming some by name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't explain it, God did it.

Who can't explain it -- you?

 

[Michael]

This is what distinguishes ID/creo as a religious dogma rather than scientific model, as there is no way to falsify it.

There's no way to falsify "big bang" theory either. It all depends on what kind of "intelligence" one is suggesting, and the what timeline they claim is involved. In *ANY* creation mythos, the "start date" is the least empirically justifiable or falsifiable aspect of the theory.

Bottom line: Things look really complicated and we don't know everything about it yet - goddidit.

Pretty much all cosmology theories that ask "where did we come from" have metaphysical entities. What's the empirical difference between "God did it" and "Inflation-Dark energies-Dark matter" did it? There isn't one!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

3. Intelligent design: Could believe in creation or evolution, just prove that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life processes

4. Theistic evolution: God guided the evolutionary process forward looking

I'm somewhere around 3 and 4. I think the current biggest problem with Darwinian evolution is the origin of life. I think its fairly well established that gene frequencies change through time due to the influence of natural processes. That's all evolution is. Its the changing gene frequency in a population. But the more I learn about molecular biology or genetics the more I am baffled by the shear complexity of life systems.

I always bring up this interesting analogy. Lets say they sent a man to Mars and when he landed he found a fully functioning pocket watch in the Martian soil. Wouldn't everyone on Earth assume this is intelligently designed? Yet, it is not nearly as complex as a life system and yet if we found a bacteria on Mars we would assume it came about by natural processes. Its interesting that in order to deem something intelligently designed we would have to find something less complex than life. And in order to deem something naturally evolved it would have to be as complex or more complex than life.

I also believe that life has an inherent, objective meaning. Human life, animal life. It is purposeful and has value. Naturalistic evolution provides no means of giving life an objective, collective purpose or value. Naturalistic evolution also provides no way to actually argue for objective moral values. Essentially, naturalistic evolution leads to subjective moral values that have no meaning external to your consciousness because, once you die, your supposed "objective values" are useless because they have no existence external to you.

 

[Michael]

I'm somewhere around 3 and 4. I think the current biggest problem with Darwinian evolution is the origin of life. I think its fairly well established that gene frequencies change through time due to the influence of natural processes. That's all evolution is. Its the changing gene frequency in a population. But the more I learn about molecular biology or genetics the more I am baffled by the shear complexity of life systems.

Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia

I agree. It gets even more baffling when you consider the "intelligence" that even single celled organisms tend to display. It's not the least bit difficult to believe that we live in an ancient universe where "life forms" as we understand them, were simply part of the "design" and evolutionary processes were part of the "plan".

 

[Jazer]

There's no way to falsify "big bang" theory either.

Actually they can falsify the theory with physics. That is why they had to develop quantum physics. Ever sense they have tried to find unity between the two and so far have failed.

 

[Doveaman]

There are bascially four views on creation. If you had to pick and back yours based on evidence. Which one would you say, and what evidence would you give?

1. Young earth creation: All animals created in current forms, earth about 10,000 years old

2. Old earth creation: All animals created progressively through different eras, earth billions of years old

3. Intelligent design: Could believe in creation or evolution, just prove that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life processes

4. Theistic evolution: God guided the evolutionary process forward looking

5. Darwinian evolution: Nature guided evolution backward looking (in other words, with no end in sight).

I have my own views, but I'm always interested in learning what others think.

My view of creation would be Re-Creation: All animals and man created in current forms a few thousand years ago following global catastrophes that led to the extinction of prehistoric life forms.

Genesis 1, then, would be a renewal-creation, or re-creation, of the earth following global catastrophes which ultimately led to the destruction of the earth’s biosphere. God then renewed the earth in six days by creating a new biosphere.

This idea is consistent with a young earth (biosphere) being created on an old planet.

Now the earth was formless and empty...Then God said, "Let there be..." (Gen 1:2-3).

"When You send Your Spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth." (Psa 104:30).

The earth will also be renewed again in the future:

"The elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare...But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth" (2 Pet 3:10-13).

 

[TheReasoner]

So I'm guessing you're not an ID proponent. That's fine if that's your view, but I would really like to hear from someone that is on this question. It's easy for someone that doesn't believe in one point of view to say "it's no good." Although I do agree in the dangers of the "God of the gaps" theories. Can't explain it, God did it. Then if we find out how it can be explained, it seems we don't need God to explain anything.

I see that. I just don't see why we need to have inexplicable situations in which we squeeze God. I mean... Isn't He God? Isn't He capable of being... You know, real even if we can explain and understand stuff?

 

[driewerf]

There are bascially four views on creation.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

[driewerf]

True, but in pretty much every creation story, the current earth and creatures appeared fully formed. Plus, you don't have anybody trying to scientifically prove that the Sumerian creation story is accurate.

There isn't anybody trying to prove the christian creation story either. There are a lot of people claiming to have prove of a young earth? But really doing it? Nobody.

 

[TheReasoner]

There isn't anybody trying to prove the christian creation story either. There are a lot of people claiming to have prove of a young earth? But really doing it? Nobody.

You have people who claim they have been visited by aliens. No proof, of course. People who claim to have been visited by angels - and have proof in the form of feathers - which said people refuse to give up when asked if DNA testing could be run on them. Or by creatures from norse mythology even. None have actual proof. Just empty claims. But this young earth nonsense is even worse than the aforementioned. It's like claiming the earth is flat - which some people do.
Why? Because the claim is utterly and completely falsified. It is known to be untrue. It's not just a claim which can't be backed. Like seeing Bigfoot in your yard. Nope. It's worse than that because as Bigfoot's presence in your yard may or may not be testable. It probably isn't. Bigfoot's just an empty claim with no proof supporting and strictly speaking no proof contradicting it. Like me claiming to sit on a unicorn right now. It's nonsensical and everyone knows it. But it's not something you're likely to be able to falsify.Young Earth. Well, there we have hard evidence. We have proof. We have a claim that can be measured up against what we know to be true - like the claims concerning a flat earth. And like flat earth claim the young earth claim is utterly and totally falsified. Whatever may be ultimately true we know that flat and young earth are wrong.

 

[thegandyman]

Who can't explain it -- you?

There are certain things that have yet to be explained such as the cause of the Big Bang. The fact that the Big Bang is a scientific theory that can't be reproduced obviously has philosophical and relgious implications. I believe God was the first cause agent of everything regardless of what your view on how it was done scientifically is. The only problem I'm pointing out is that if you assign God as the cause to everything that is unknown, if science ever figures it out, it seems that it minimizes the need for God.