The consequences of "Evolution is false"

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.

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:

You have missed my point: creationists frequently cite as "evidence" stuff which has no basis in fact.Like this: How confidently you announce that these "tropical zebras" exist! With what massive complacency you assure me that there is "no conjecture in that". One would almost suppose that you had some actual knowledge.We are clearly not looking at "the same evidence". A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence. But he did not say that. He said there are no intermediate forms and that scientists have given up looking for them. If he knows better, he is a liar. It is only charitable to suppose that he knows no better, and is in fact merely totally ignorant of the subject he's discussing.

nemesis juggernaut Since there is evidence available for the latter{Svalbard Geologybut none for the former then I guess the former is wishful thinking

But it makes my point beautifully. In this case, we should compare the predictions made by the two theories to find out who is right.For example, if you hypothesise that the whole world was tropical before the flood, and that the flood is the cause of fossils, then we should find only tropical animals preserved as fossils. This can be tested. It is false.Again, the theory of plate tectonics makes the prediction (for example) that the continents should still be in motion. We have instruments today sensitive enough to measure this directly, and they are.The difference between a creationist "interpretation" and a scientific interpretation is that the scientist is not allowed to stick in suppositions ad hoc: every hypothesis has to have its predictions checked against reality. We are talking about scientists: they know this: this is their job.

A description of Spitzbergen when it was tropical, from sidelined's link: Now, if someone could find, say, a tiger in the Carboniferous strata, there would be no way to "reinterpret" that: it would be goodnight Darwin. But on the contrary, the rocks show us just what we would expect to find: first primitive fish, then an age of amphibians, then reptiles.Meanwhile, the tropical pre-deluge Earth takes another knock. We do not find anything corresponding to modern tropical fauna in the fossil record: nor indeed a single set of fauna and flora.

I'm sure the consensus is that it is attributed to continental drift. There is another theory that the magnetic polarity shifts every few thousand years and the poles reverse. Some have tried to make persuasive arguments in defense of it to explain why tropical plants are in an arctic region, but this particular claim lacks some backbone.In any case, the point I'm trying to make is we are all looking at the same evidence, we are just interpreting it differently.

---

"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

If that's what I portrayed then I have been misunderstood. Some theories are held together better than others, but the one thing everyone can agree on is the piece of evidence. Again, one theory may be better supported than another, but they are still interpreting the same evidence. There methodology is what differs so dramatically. For some of them, yes, that has been a problem-- a big problem in my best estimation because it emasculates scientific integrity. 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. They are supposed to be, but sometimes that it seldom seen. The question is whether someone can gain some philosophical satisfaction for their answers. For instance, both evo and creo have certain satisfying philosophies if they prove their theories right. That right there undermines the integrity. But if you look at cancer research, there is no ulterior motive behind the inquiry. They just want to eradicate disease. They have been trying to do that for along time, with only nominal success. It really wasn't until an agnostic, Michael Denton, came along that people seriously reconsidered the validity of the Darwinian model. Creationists have had alot of trouble being taken seriously for the reasons you share. And then ID came along to propel the argument further to where there is a significant scientific exodus underway to make headlines.

---

"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

Agaun, you make my point beautifully. This is wildly inaccurate.The poles certainly do shift. This is not an alternate theory to that of continental drift; both are true. No-one has ever advanced the shift in the poles as an explanation for fossils of tropical plants in an arctic region. How could it be?You are not looking at "the same evidence" as me, you're looking at half-baked tripe. Where did you get this stuff from? Who told you this nonsense?

And yet in fact we find that whereas creationists do have philosophical views in common, supporters of real science have widely disparate philosophies. That is a strong assertion. Again, I ask you to name and shame the guilty men. Which scientists have been behaving without integrity? What actions have they committed which lacked integrity? Is that a new term for "failure"? Ah, yes, Michael Denton:It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. (Nature's Destiny, pages xvii-xviii). Who on earth told you that?Good grief, you'll swallow anything, won't you?Are we looking at "the same evidence"? I think not.Your sole example of the "exodus" appears to be a man who has, in fact, become an evolutionist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : 'Cos I still can't spell.

This means that certain creationists have turned their own scientific methodology against themseleves by trying to conform scientific evidence to their basic ideological tenets. Some evolutionists are in the same boat when they immediately reject any notion of ID on the basis of it running counter to their personal irreligious beliefs. Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins come to mind.

---

"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

quote:

---

And then ID came along to propel the argument further to where there is a significant scientific exodus underway ...

---

It's interesting isn't it - the name in bold changes but the claim is always the same "Evolution is a theory in crisis". If anything people are dropping Intelligent design and moving onto the next scam (and some back to good old fashion creationism) - it does have a name but I forgot it for the moment.

There is no reason to think that, since their arguments against ID are the same as those of theist scientists.

Having some background in research and calculations/computer modelings of actual data from space probes on planetary magnetic fields as well as some background in working in plant labs, I must admit that I am quite ignorant on how magnetic polarity shifts can explain tropical plant life being found in arctic regions, and as far as I know I have not heard of a single proposal for such a "theory". Mind explaining how it works or who proposed it? What does finding tropical plants in arctic regions tell you?

The legend that evolution is just about to collapse has been handed down from generation to generation. The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in CreationismIt doesn't get any truer, does it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.