Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[Speedwell]

great. so we can explain anything in biology by creation too. and thus we dont need evolution to explain it.

It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.

 

[pitabread]

He's saying that a designer wouldn't make the mutations directly. The designer could still make the DNA, and mutations could pop up in successive generations. A created individual wouldn't have mutations pretty much by definition.

I'd caution on such a response, since it doesn't constitute an explanation. Having gone through these discussions, I knew exactly where xianghua was trying to lead and his response demonstrated just that.

In order to have an explanation for this, we'd need to know how the designer would have done a such a thing. "Goddidit" by itself isn't an explanation.

 

[pitabread]

It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.

Exactly. Explaining the "how" is something creationism is completely lacking.

And in my experience, creationists aren't even interested in pursuing an answer to that question.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.

In order to have an explanation for this, we'd need to know how the designer would have done a such a thing. "Goddidit" by itself isn't an explanation.

Doesn’t trying to eliminate a duly designated side of a debate, based on the grounds that we should know exactly how GOD achieved His creation, beyond what we are told and able to discern from available scripture, seem a little bit ‘discussion defeating?’ No doubt, some would like that. ‘God-did-it’ puts most of the explaining on evolution, sure, but after all, it is the ‘Johnny-come-lately’ in this difference in reasoning. Cut us some slack.

 

[pitabread]

Doesn’t trying to eliminate a duly designated side of a debate, based on the grounds that we should know exactly how GOD achieved His creation, beyond what we are told and able to discern from available scripture, seem a little bit ‘discussion defeating?’

If people want to claim there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer, then we need that explanation. Otherwise you're more than welcome to tell xianghua that that just isn't the case.

 

[inquiring mind]

If people want to claim there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer, then we need that explanation. Otherwise you're more than welcome to tell xianghua that that just isn't the case.

Did he say he knew "exactly how GOD achieved" anything?

 

[pitabread]

Did he say he knew "exactly how GOD achieved" anything?

He said exactly this:

great. so we can explain anything in biology by creation too. and thus we dont need evolution to explain it.

Do you think that is a true statement? Is there a scientific theory of creation on par with the current theory of evolution in terms of explanatory power?

If yes, then surely you can point me to where I will find such a thing. (And no, it's not in the Bible. I've read it.)

 

[inquiring mind]

He said exactly this:



Do you think that is a true statement? Is there a scientific theory of creation on par with the current theory of evolution in terms of explanatory power?

If yes, then surely you can point me to where I will find such a thing. (And no, it's not in the Bible. I've read it.)

I'll let him defend his own statements.

 

[inquiring mind]

If people want to claim there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer, then we need that explanation.

Yes, there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer/creator, but you won't 'see' it in a science book.

Is there a scientific theory of creation on par with the current theory of evolution in terms of explanatory power?

I thought it had already been established that man had no scientific theory of creation.

If yes, then surely you can point me to where I will find such a thing. (And no, it's not in the Bible. I've read it.)

None of man's scientific theory or explanatory power there, but you apparently overlooked the answer.

 

[pitabread]

None of man's scientific theory or explanatory power there, but you apparently overlooked the answer.

I'm not looking for an answer. I'm looking for an explanation.

It's like on a math test where there is a problem to solve that is worth 10 points. The answer by itself is worth 1 point. The other 9 points are awarded for showing how one arrives at that answer.

If you just want to point me to the Bible (and yes, I've read Genesis; I know what it says), then I'll give you that 1 point. Show me the actual explanation and we'll see how many of the remaining 9 points you get.

 

[xianghua]

Sure, you can make a God of the gaps explanation.

its not god of the gaps. we know that complex functional systems are the result of design. evolution on the other hand cant be proven at all.

It won't count as a scientific theory though, because scientific theories need to be falsifiable, and a vague intelligent designer isn't falsifiable.

first- evolution isnt falsifiable too. secondly- we can also prove things in science and not just disprove them.

 

[Speedwell]

its not god of the gaps. we know that complex functional systems are the result of design.

Man made functional systems are the result of design. You are trying to prove that naturally occurring functional systems are also the result of design. You can't assume it as a premise.

evolution on the other hand cant be proven at all.

No, the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is a conclusion of inductive logic. It can only be confirmed, not proven. Only the conclusions of deductive logic can be proven. Requiring any scientific theory to be proven is a violation of the rules of logic.

 

[xianghua]

As stated, we already know how mutations occur naturally. We don't need to invoke a designer to explain it.

but you said that only evolution can explain what we find in nature. so now we see that it can be explained by id too.

 

[Speedwell]

but you said that only eolution can explain what we find in nature. so now we see that it can be explained by id too.

They can be attributed to ID, but you haven not explained the mechanism by which the "designer" brings them about.

 

[xianghua]

Did he say he knew "exactly how GOD achieved" anything?

i do think that the best explanation is design rather then a natural process. the burdon of proof is still on the evolutionery side.

 

[xianghua]

They can be attributed to ID, but you haven not explained the mechanism by which the "designer" brings them about.

irrelevant. if i find a watch on mars i dont need a machanim to conclude that watch was designed.

 

[Yttrium]

its not god of the gaps. we know that complex functional systems are the result of design. evolution on the other hand cant be proven at all.

Evolution theory can't be proven. ID can't be proven. Design of the first organism from which all others follow is compatible with evolution theory. ID of the gaps is not compatible with evolution theory, but it's an alternate explanation (just not a scientific one).

first- evolution isnt falsifiable too. secondly- we can also prove things in science and not just disprove them.

We can't prove scientific theories. We can prove some things, like the process of evolution, but not the theories. The theories are required to be falsifiable before they even become theories, so yes, evolution theory is quite falsifiable. All sorts of things could falsify evolution theory. If an ID suddenly popped in a new species out of the blue before our eyes, that would break the theory. A cat giving birth to a dog. Humans and apatosaurs sharing tea together in the fossil record. It's a long list.

 

[Speedwell]

irrelevant. if i find a watch on mars i dont need a machanim to conclude that watch was designed.

No, you can look for evidences of intentional manufacture--tool marks, processed or non-natural materials, etc.--from those you may be able to conclude design. "Indications of contrivance" is what Paley called such evidence. Just the fact that what you found is a complex mechanism is not evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

We can't prove scientific theories.

realy? so if we go back in time and i had a theory that the earth is a round. there is no way to prove my theory?

. All sorts of things could falsify evolution theory. Humans and apatosaurs sharing tea together in the fossil record.

even such a fossil will not falsify evolution. we can claim for anomaly or push back human origin. no problem for evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

realy? so if we go back in time and i had a theory that the earth is a round. there is no way to prove my theory?




even such a fossil will not falsify evolution. we can claim for anomaly or push back human origin. no problem for evolution.

You could, maybe, but people who understand how evolution works could not.