The consequences of "Evolution is false"

Others squander their lives nurturing ignorance with an illusory sense of privilege.Give me the custodians, ditch-diggers, immigrants and scientists any day over the snobs.Real people for a real world..Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The problem creationists have is that the rules of science are indeed stacked against them. However this is not, as is perceived, in order to exclude conclusions that are in accordance with biblical creation.
There is no point discussing the nature of science or the motives of scientists without examining the underlying purpose that defines the scientific method in the first place. It is the methods, not the people, of science that enforce honesty and competence.The methods of science are designed to achieve objective truth. Whether practicing scientists are explicitly conscious of this when undertaking science or whether it is actually being achieved are seperate questions. The fact remains that this is what the methodologies of science are attempting to achieve.The scientific method of investigation and associated practices (absolute reliance on physical evidence above all other, peer review, repeatable experiments, logically concluded refutable predictions etc. etc.) have been put in place exactly in order to weed out fraudulant, misguided and erroneous claims. They have been put in place to expose incompetent research and to reveal prejudiced findings.The fact that science follows such methods is a recognition of the fact that we as humans we have desires, prejudices and beliefs that can, and do, cloud our judgement regarding the conclusions we draw about the world around us. The methods of science are the best means we have of immunising our theories from such considerations in order to understand the world in as objective and universal a way as is possible.The fact that established scientific theories meet these criteria is hardly surprising as they arose gradually and painstakingly by means of this methodology.
The fact creationist claims do not meet these criteria should not be suprising either. Creationists make little effort to conceal the fact that their research into the physical world is founded on assumptions and beliefs of exactly the sort the the scientific method attempts to remove from the conclusion drawing equation.
Please note that this does not preclude conclusions that are consistent with biblical creation in any way. It just requires that they are made scientifically.If the methods of science are stacked against creationism and the conclusions made using these methods are in conflict with creationist beliefs - maybe it is because creationist claims are just objectively not true.The OP discusses the consequences of evolution not being true in terms of the implications that logically has for the motives, competence and honesty of those conducting scientific research. I would argue that te main implication of evolution being false would be a major review being necessary of the scientific method.It is by the methods of science, not the individuals, that honesty and competence is imposed on those undertaking scientific reearch.
If creationists have a problem with the value of the research then they effectively have a problem with the methods being used.Until creationists can scientifically demonstrate that their claims have foundation or show why the scientific method is flawed in some way, they have no case.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Indeed.
I would happily squander my days (even digging ditches) in prefernce to the "worthwhile and beneficial" activities I am sure Prophex and his ilk are busying themselves with.

I've noticed a number of posts by various posters that make snide personal comments, and this is one. This is a warning to cut it out. Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

Unwarranted personal slam. Further such comments will lead to a suspension

The motivations of your opponents are not open to your view and your speculations on same are out of order. Continue along such lines and a suspension will follow.

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. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that is my belief. There is much of it that I cannot prove. I also have serious doubts about the Darwinian model and find it to be incredibly implausible. In that way, I guess I'm a creationist. However, I find it completely counter-productive for pro-creation groups to find compelling scientific reasons why this or that adds up, instead of letting the evidence take them wherever it may lead. But evolutionists should know that certain creationists are not the only ones who cornered the market on conforming evidence to their basic beliefs. As indictable it is to say that creationist tailor the scientific evidence to conform to their core beliefs, many evolutionists are guilty of the exact same bigotry, only in the opposite direction. I'm growing more and more disillusioned by the whole argument. That's because if both groups are looking at the same piece of evidence, how can they come to such contrasting views on the interpretations? Obviously one or both groups are willing to abandon legitimate scientific inquiry as long as it makes the other group look bad.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The difference, I would argue, is that where scientists do let their prjudices and beliefs get in the way of good scientific investigation it is the very methods of science described in my previous post that exposes them.
It is fellow scientists who have scientifically refuted the erroneous claims of other scientists by means of peer review, making logical predictions, repeating experiments etc. etc. Not creationists. One has slowly and painstakingly come to it's conclusions via the scintific method which is the best form of objective truth finding we have available.
The other has come to it's conclusions without regard to any physical evidence and seeks to verify these conclusions to non-believers by interpreting existing evidence (has a creationist ever actually discovered anything new or predicted any unknown physical phenomemnon as a logical consequence of their theories) in a manner that is consistent with their faith based beliefs.
The two approaches are very different. I leave it you to decide which you think is the best method of evaluating evidence in order to obtain a truthful outcome.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

NJ writes: Hope you are not too disillusioned to provide some examples other than Piltdown Man. I am familiar with wild speculations but not so much 'tailored' evidence. Would be fascinated to see some examples, especially in the geosciences.If you or others have enough examples of blatantly manufactured evidence on either side, it would prove an interesting new thread IMO.Thanks for such a reasonable post that evenhandedly states neither side of this debate is always free of unethical practices.signed as always, your ToE-supporting adversary.ABE - upon reflection, there was that faked Chinese bird fossil and shennanigans at Paluxy just for starters. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

There have been isolated incidences of scientific fraud in evolutionary reearch and other areas of science.
I don't claim that the scientific method completely kills off the possibility of individual scientists attempting to gain prestiege and respect (which are usually the reasons for bad science). Scientists are only human after all. However I would argue that it is the scientific method in it's widest sense (i.e. including peer review, prediction etc. etc.) that does expose such falsehoods. It is other scientists undertaking good science that have exposed fraudulant claims. Not creationists.
This is why the scientific method is such a good way of exposing the truth. It is almost impossible to knowingly create a false conclusion that will stand up to independent and throrough scientific investigation.Edited by Straggler, : Minor rewording

Of course I do not disagree. One interesting result of examining various frauds regardless of source would be by whom and how they were eventually exposed.

Yes. That would be interesting. Not sure if taking this particular thread down that road would be taking it overtly off topic or not.....?
But it would be an interesting exercise.I personally think that the fact science is the best means of exposing false science is the best indication of it's truth seeking, as opposed to prejudice confirming, capabilities.

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?