The consequences of "Evolution is false"

It is true that any particular creationist theory wouldn't necessarily be embraced if evolution were overthrown, but your assertion is whistling in the dark if you think that the actual overthrow of the ToE would not give a big boost to creationism in general. If evolution is not true, the alternatives are rather limited, to put it mildly.

Can it? Even Mendel didn't understand what he was seeing with his pea plants; all he could do was record the outcomes. He had no idea at all why some traits segregated in the Mendellian way, but why (for instance) the child of a black woman and a white man has an intermediate skin tone.If DNA can be studied and understood outside of the light of evolution, why is it that we couldn't understand or study DNA until after the development of evolution?

The interactions are complex. I'm not going to say that the ToE did not provide impetus to some discoveries. But understanding DNA does not depend on the ToE.

Why do all organisms, regardless of body plan, share homologous Homeobox structure, if not because of the ToE?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Correct. And creationism is not one of those alternatives.If evolution is not true, as currently stated, then it will probably just need a little tweaking.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

You mean "because of evolution," not "because of the ToE." A theory can't dictate structure.Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of scientific specifics. There are lots of questions that could be asked, that have been asked and discussed at EvC on other threads for that matter. Creationists have no problem understanding DNA without reference to the ToE. Most of what is explained in evolutionist terms as genetic descent is explained in creationist terms as design economy. Let's leave it at that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words, you aren't really thinking of evolution being shown not to be true.I see no other alternative to evolution than creationism of some sort or other. What possibilities do you have in mind?

Forbidden

The YEC version of creationism is thoroughly refuted. And that refutation does not require evolution.Sure, there could be other versions of creationism, the deist's version for example. But those satisfy neither the YEC nor the requirements of biology.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Please make your point in your own words rather than providing a bare link.At a quick glance it appears to be a list of creationist possibilities, which supports what I said anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The YEC version of creationism is refuted only in evo dreams.However, I didn't mention YEC, I simply said some sort of creationism.And if evolution is not true, and nothing else is true either, then where are we?

Fair enough. If you like, what I meant was "... if not as a result of the processes and conditions specified by the ToE." Heh! Funny how a creationist always wilts when specifics are presented. In fact, I've never met or even heard of a creationist who actually did understand DNA. It's their lack of understanding, in fact, that results in them being creationists. I mean clearly you don't understand how what I told you could be true, because you reject the ToE. You'd rather "not turn it onto a thread about specifics." Convinient, that. Of course it proves my point - absent the ToE you don't have an answer for why, regardless of body plan, all organisms have essentially an identically-structured Homeobox region. "Design economy" has been refuted, so if that's all creationists had, they have nothing. Creationists have no explanation for the recurring, nonsensical homologies of the living world. Evolutionists have an overarching explanation that works for every such homology.

Balderdash. Design economy CAN'T be refuted. It's always a possibility. Evolutionists are always having to point out that this or that apparent product of descent could in fact have arisen by "parallel evolution." A stopgap provision there, showing that the overarching explanation does NOT work for every homology.I have no idea what you mean by "recurring nonsensical homologies," let alone why creationist assumptions couldn't cope with them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who said anything about nothing else being true?Obviously, if evolution isn't true, then something else is. But that something doesn't automatically imply creationism.

Well, it can be refuted in instances where a from-scratch redesign would have been more economical than the modifications needed to reuse pre-existing design.Of course, if you're openly admitting that there's absolutely nothing that could refute creationism, you've come right out and proven that creationism can never be science. Parallel evolution is part of the explanation, and indeed, evolution lets us predict what kind of homologies will be explainable by parallel evolution, and those accurate predictions confirm the theory.So you've refuted yourself with your own example. Homologies that don't make any sense from a design perspective. It makes a little sense for a purported "designer" to copy his successful designs to save labor*, but why would a designer copy over his failures?*Actually? That doesn't make a lick of sense. We're talking about infinite God, who has the power to create a universe in one day. It's nonsense to suggest that God needs to take shortcuts, cut corners, save labor. It's idiotic, in fact. It's no harder for God to design from scratch than to copy-paste gene sequences. I hope you can do better than "design economy", it's nonsense from purely theological grounds.