|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The consequences of "Evolution is false" | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Far be it from me to support the creationist cause.....however -
I don't think the majority of creationists do consider scientists to be either liars or incompetent per se.I think they would argue that scientists are indoctrinated through formal education and that their overwillingness to dispose of the need for any supernatural role on the physical world leads them to seek answers which actively eliminate the possibility of any Godly interference. I also think there is a major issue with creationists really not understanding exactly what science actually is. This leads many of them to genuinely believe that all theories regarding anything we cannot actually observe directly are equal as long as they can conceivably explain the world as we find it now. When debating with creos it often becomes apparent that they are genuinely baffled as to why their (often bizzarre) interpretations of evidence are not taken as seriously as scientific ones. In short I think it is (often willful) ignorance combined with an element of paranoia regarding societies attituade towards their views that results in the sort of creationist claims you detail in your OP. Science is perceived to be (probably correctly) the main obstacle to society at large being willing to accept their claims which they genuinely believe to be as justified as established scientific theories. I guess we need a real creationist to give their view to take this to the next step.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I would have thought this sort of debate is exactly the sort of one that does require a hardcore creationist to be involved?
It could be argued that it will be difficult to take it much further without such input. Surely the admins would not object to you taking part in this thread.Would they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Give me the custodians, ditch-diggers, immigrants and scientists any day over the snobs.
Indeed. Real people for a real world.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
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. 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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If evolutionary (i.e. pretty much all biological directly or indirectly) research is not the work of liars or incompetents then, as I have explained in previous posts in this thread, it must be the scientific method which has led to these conclusions which is at fault. IF evolutionary theory is wrong that is.
Either that or there must be a huge and interwoven scientific conspiracy involving all scientific institutions, individuals and bodies operating under some sort of unspoken anti creationist code. Do creationists take issue with the scientific method as the best means of determining the true nature of reality?Do creationists propose that there is a huge conspiracy against them going on? Do they disagree with my previous posts that spell out why the scientific method is the best means to produce the closest approximation to the truth? (post 92) Do they claim that evolutionary theory is not a product of the scientific method? Without some detailed creationist input into this thread which addresses these issues directly there seems little point in continuing. In what way exactly do the creationists think evolutionary theory is lacking? Other than the fact that it disagrees with the bible. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your strong implication is that a creationist and a scientific interpretation of the same evidence are somehow equal when in fact they are not.
Creationist interpretations are made with a predefined cnclusion in mind.Scientific interpretations are made based on the conclusions of the scientific method. The unstated aim of the scientifc method is unprejudiced, unbiased, objective conclusions. Creationists either need to explain why the scientific method is not the best means of obtaining the truth (and provide an alternative) or they need to show how evolutionary conclusions have not been made scientifically. The very basis on which the two interpretations have been made are not equal. As such the interpretations themselves should not be given equal validity. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But, the same can be said of certain evolutionists who 'look' for satisfying reasons to have one piece of evidence conform to their preconceived notions.
This has occurred in a couple of famous cases. However it was ultimately the scientific community practicing the scientific method in it's widest sense that exposed these.It is the exacting and stringent conditions that are imposed on scientific conclusions that largely preclude the sort of wilfull interpretation you mention. It is these same conditions that expose it when it happens. I would argue that exposure of biased conclusions is part of the scientific method. For his reason scientific conclusions are far more reliable than I feel you are portraying here. Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time. Surely this is the old argument of irreducible complexity in another guise? Creationists have repeatedly attempted to find examples ANY organ or biological mechanism in ANY living thing that could not be the result of graduated changes. To my knowledge they have never succeeded? Given this is there any empirical basis or requirement for macroevolution in the sense you seem to be suggesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are correct that the origin of life does pose a more serious question for science than does evolution by natural selection.
However this post is primarily about the origin of species by means of evolution, and the evidence for this, rather than the original formation of life. There are many creationists who still insist that evolution did not take place and this post was setup primarily in response to them. The origin of life from non life (abiogenesis) is an interesting question but not directly relevant to the topic at hand. Maybe a new thread is in order.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
We have left evolution (which you seem to accept) and moved onto abiogenesis. Oh well.....
RNA and DNA are not alive. They do not do anything but float around like any other molecule suspended in solution. But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
I think you are confusing self replicating molecules and eukaryotic cells. The first life is postulated to be bacterial in form I believe. Full blown cells came much later. Also you are arguing from a position of statistical improbability which is always dangerous. Lets say, for the sake of example, that there are 10 billion planets in the universe on which life could have arisen. If the chances of life occurring are a billion to one then statistically we would expect ten planets to have given rise to life.Now I do not know how many planets there are capable of giving rise to life and nor do you but it is quite possibly a huge number so your argument of statistical incredulity falls down there. Finally on a purely pragmatic note - If we followed your thinking we would just give up researching the beginnings of life. Well we already know God did it so what is the point?With this attitude we would still think the planets are held in orbit aroud the Earth by means of Gods will, we would still be making sacrifices to fertility Gods to bless us with children and we would still think all life has always been more o less in it's present form. Fortunately scientists are not inclined to accept non-natural answers to physical questions and so far they have done a pretty good job of supplying alternatives despite religiously inspired resistance at every turn. Long may it continue. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You really do seem to be confusing evolution and abiogenesis quite badly in your posts. Although obviously related in the widest sense they are not the same thing. It is quite possible to accept evolution whilst maintaining that the origins of life required a creator of some kind. Many people in fact do just this and this is arguably the position of most mainstream religious bodies.
Anyway regarding abiogenesis raher than evolution -
I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence This does presuppose that tere IS a purpose which I would dispute as necessarily true.Again I would ask you to consider the point I made earlier You are arguing from a position of statistical improbability which is always dangerous. Lets say, for the sake of example, that there are 10 billion planets in the universe on which life could have arisen. If the chances of life occurring are a billion to one then statistically we would expect ten planets to have given rise to life.
On what basis do you assert that there is any purpose at all? On what basis are you so sure it is not just a question of statistics and probability?
Now I do not know how many planets there are capable of giving rise to life and nor do you but it is quite possibly a huge number so your argument of statistical incredulity falls down there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024