The consequences of "Evolution is false"

Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence.I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them. I'll list them below.1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public2) Scientists are incompetent at doing scienceMost of the time, Creationists don't really put forth these statements in such bold language, but they are, indeed, the logical consequence to the claim that they make; that Evolution is not supported by the evidence or is false.One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.If concept A, is discovered, replicated, and overall shown to be reliable, this will lead to concept B, which is based upon what we know about A.If B also turns out to be reliable, this is also confirmation of concept A. And so on, and so on and so on...If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years? The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail. Research using it as a guide should never advance much, if at all.How is it that predictions keep being made based upon the ToE that are subsequently borne out?Are scientists really all liars and crooks, maintaining an elaborate deception on not only an unwitting public but also upon the entire scientific community?Or, are Biologists simply so incredibly poor at doing science that they don't realize that all of their experiments have failed?Is it Science?, please.

quote:

---

Also, I've many times addressed this same question/accusation of Schraf's, many times.

---

No, you haven't adequately addressed this claim, Faith.You have never addressed the issue of how it is that current scientific work can continue to progress if it is all based upon an utter falsehood perpetuated only through indoctrination or habit.You have never addressed the concept of science being cumulative and progressive; with concepts A, B, and C being the basis of concepts D, E, and F, and so on.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of scientific specifics.

---

But isn't that what you asked for back on page 1 when you wrote:

quote:

---

Also, for this to make sense, you have to provide particulars.

---

Crash is discussing exactly the sort of "particulars" you said you wanted to be provided to you in order for the discussion to make sense.Faith, what you seem to have been suggesting is that scientists can do science in isolation from theory, or even from the work of other scientists, past or present.How do you suggest that a Biologist just starting out today figure out what to study and how to study it, if she doesn't refer to theory, or to the work of those who have come before her?Just what is your understanding of the role of theory in the work of research scientists?

quote:

---

And I do not think scientists are incompetent. Why I should have to keep saying this over and over again is beyond me.

---

It's because you frequently write things like this: link to message #14

quote:

---

And your entire theory is nothing but a coulda woulda cognitive exercise, an imaginative construct like so much that goes on in evolutionist thinking. Not a fact to be found, nor apparently of any concern.

---

I know that you were making a comment upon the notion that religious ideas were based upon fallacies, but you made it quite clear that you believe both the ToE and the above mentioned idea about religions to be void of facts and merely an "imaginitive construct".You have claimed that the ToE, which is the theoretical foundation, the very bedrock of all of the life sciences, is a mere "factless imaginative construct" and scientists are utterly unconcerned with this lack of factual basis.If you believe that the ToE is nothing more than a "factless imaginative construct", it must be true that any scientist who accepts it must be incompetent at doing science, or else they would have seen that it was false, wouldn't they?Every single time I see that you've made this claim, I promise you that I will ask you to explain why it is that you believe that scientists are utterly incompetent at doing science, or are maybe just dunderheaded simpletons.

quote:

---

I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to evolution, but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is anti-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and atheism. Although there are theistic evolutionists, I think atheism is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying support of evolution, and even theistic evolutionists don't necessarily accept supernatural explanations for anything. Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically overthrown, for instance, plus the plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the ToE. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive.

---

According to you, scienctists accept evolution because:They can't compensate for bias at all, which is what scientists are trained to do in experimental design.They aren't motivated to question assumptions or find weaknesses in theories, which is what scientists are trained to do.They simply accept certain bits of information as true instead of investigating and testing to see if they really are correct, which is what scientists are trained to do.They refuse to allow their personal spiritual beliefs in God to be included in empirical research, simply because science is not designed to detect or utilize any supernatural "stuff".All of this adds up to scientists being really terrible at doing science, according to you.

quote:

---

lol

​

can't believe I just wrote that crap

​

dumb stuff this all is

​

o well

---

You said it, not me.

quote:

---

It's the way you and schraf are proned to arguing it seems.
No evidence, straight rhetoric, lies, and anecdotes.

---

Throwing a few mudballs while you run away from arguments you can't address, kiddo?

quote:

---

Does holding an individual, or groups of individuals, in low regard induce one to believe that they are incompetent?

---

That is an oversimplification that twists FliesOnly's and my point, which is: Creationists say that scientists are completely wrong about the ToE.They say that scientists are completely wrong about the foundational theory of all of the life sciences.IF scientists really are completely wrong about the foundation of their entire field, and have been wrong for 150 years, then what other conclusion can one come to than they are really bad at doing science, or that they are fully aware that their rheory doesn't hold water and have been lying about it all this time?If those two scenarios sound silly to you, it's because they ARE silly.However, those are the two most plausible logical conclusions of the creationist stance that the ToE is completely wrong.

You are a god, Dr. A.

quote:

---

I have written posts on why I reject evolution. It's social implications,...

---

Do you also reject the Atomic Theory of Matter because of it's "social implications"?

quote:

---

It's pretty difficult for any real ID creationist to address anything in EvC's science forums when the EvC definition of science excludes us from that exclusive definition of what science is and none of the research work and papers of our creo ID scientists, including the PHDs is not considered science.

---

Yeah.It really is pretty difficult to have a scientific discussion if you refuse to play by scientific rules.It would be like trying to play official-rules baseball with someone who insists upon being able to use ghost runners and a tee to hold the ball for them while they are at bat.

quote:

---

Hang in there and do the best you can, good bud. Many avid athiests and evolutionista including folks like the late Dr Morris, founder of Institute For Creation Research and Mr Miller who did our creation seminar have been enlightened to renounce the TOE. We must work and pray for our counterpart EvC friends to this end. Deception is powerful but in the end will be overcome with truth.

---

What deception?

quote:

---

The piles of evidence mean nothing to me.

---

Then you should never go to the doctor ever again, since what they do is science-based.You shouldn't fly in planes or ride in cars, either, for the same reason. Better stop using the computer, too.

quote:

---

Faith, as an admin, suspended herself, because if you people want to be martyred round here, damn, you've got to do it yourselves.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.

---

Such as?

I really don't want this question to be overlooked:You claimed:

quote:

---

And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.

---

And then I replied: