What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?

Thank you, it gave me quite a laugh reading those arguments. However, I'd like to remind you of two things.
One, saying all Creationists use these arguments is what we call in Logic an informal fallacy of generalization, meaning that if some in a group say one thing, the whole group must also say the same. For I happen to know many Creationists who breach a bit more of the surface in this topic than those who say the arguments (if they can be called that) quoted here.
Two, arising from this generalization, you seem to be denoting the whole Creationist idea because of some Creationists' lack of intelligence. This is what we call in Logic an informal fallacy of ad hominem (or appeal to the man), saying based on someone's lack of intelligence or character, their view deserves no credit.
I believe it most advantagous to take a different approach to this topic. While believing our respective sides, all should be open-mined to the other's view, and open to seeing the flaws in their own. For what is debate, if not the search for the truth? And how is such a search to be accomplished, without the willingness of all to question not only the opposing belief, but also their own? Only when this state of mind is reached by all can true progress ever be made in science or debate.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Welcome to the forum, Soracilla! Have fun, play nice. You are right about generalizing both for the reason you give but also for another. It seems to me that no two 'creationists' have the same idea of how things have transpired. There is the most amazing range of old, middle-aged and young earth ideas. There is one flood or a bunch. There is no evolution at all, there is some and there is a lot of hyper fast evolution. Generalizing from all that is difficult. I would say that all someone has to do here is put forward their views. It seems to me that the record of the debate to date is a clear indication of open mindedness on the side of the supporters of science (and some of the others). Everything (ever some very, very silly statements) are read, considered in detail and torn to pieces.Being open minded does not mean agreeing with or even giving any credibility to. It means, to me, listening to the idea, understanding it well enough to really know what is being said (perhaps, by asking a lot of nosy questions) and then making a reasoned judgement on it.For some of the ideas that fall within the broad range of "creationism" the deliberations have been done (a lot of times). The earth is not 6,000 years old!For some of the ideas that might fall within an enormously broad definition, for example God created the universe at the big bang. Many here who are athiest don't care to argue with and many others on the side of science, in fact, believe that.What particular views do you want people to listen to with an open mind? Care to start or join appropriate theads to discuss them. I would be very surprised if they aren't taken with an open mind.

---

Common sense isn't

Well said for the most part. But surely you would recognize that just as Creationism is not homogenus (not all the same), neither is Evolution. Some believe we came from sponges, others say RNA. Some subscibe to Gould's punctuated equilibrium, others say we have yet to find significant transitional fossils.I would agree that open-mindedness does not mean agreeing with the opposing view, hastily dismissing our own beliefs. Yet merely putting forward our own views will not lead anywhere. We have to be willing to do more than that, to recognize that perhaps our own beliefs are not set in stone.Also, when you say "supporters of science", I assume you are referring to (perhaps indirectly) Evolutionists, you must see that many Creationists see themselves as "supporters of science." I would say the real task in this debate is to examine the evidence we see, ask questions, and accept the strongest logical conclusion. Yet my point is, that perhaps the strongest conclusion is not exactly what we have always thought to be true, and we must be willing to accept what science and logic tell us to accept. That is what science is all about, is it not? Finding the truth in the world by examining the evidence, even if it means tweaking our own beliefs? Truth is out there, and we must do our best to find it, even if it is not what we thought was true to begin with. Would you agree with this?Finally to answer your last question, I'd like all views to be heard, and see if they survive the test of logic and science.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

The third paragraph talks of finding "truth". I'm not sure what 'truth' is. But I'll be happy to find a really solid, robust working explanation for things.Your first paragraph is a bit packed with misconceptions but none of that belongs in this thread.If you want to discuss your beliefs and have them considered with an open mind you'll first have to make it clear what they are. My personal suggestion is that if you are a young earther you head off to some dates and dating threads and discuss it there.I can't make other suggestions without knowing what you do believe.

---

Common sense isn't

I don't think you'd find an evolutionist here who wouldn't agree with this. The thing is, it's not like we're just dismissing creationist arguments out of hand, without consideration - all us evolutionists have largely heard the creationist arguments before. We've already considered them, and rejected them as being without merit.We're open-minded, sure. But being open-minded doesn't mean that we're prepared to re-open the consideration of the same tired arguments just because somebody shows up and says "I say that creationism is right!" without any sort of new evidence.

quote:

---

Well said for the most part. But surely you would recognize that just as Creationism is not homogenus (not all the same), neither is Evolution.

---

The fundamental principles of the ToE are not debated by evolutionary biologists. Specific issues such as molecular clocks, specific taxonomies, rates of evolution among certain branches of life are debated. There is no common theme to creationism other than they all assume God/Gods/Intelligent Designer did it but nobody knows how and there is no way to tell how.

quote:

---

Some believe we came from sponges, others say RNA.

---

Look on the list of common misconceptions of creationists..this one is on it i.e. that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing.

quote:

---

Some subscibe to Gould's punctuated equilibrium, others say we have yet to find significant transitional fossils.

---

This is hardly a debate about whether or not the theory of evolution is correct or not. PE deals with pace of evolution and transitionals deal with the fact that not every single organism that ever lived is fossilized.

quote:

---

I would agree that open-mindedness does not mean agreeing with the opposing view, hastily dismissing our own beliefs. Yet merely putting forward our own views will not lead anywhere. We have to be willing to do more than that, to recognize that perhaps our own beliefs are not set in stone.

---

I think the point of this thread deals with two issues. 1) No creationist has ever put forward a scientific hypothesis for creationism. Nobody has ever proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of creation and therefore it is not science. Thus, science has no reason to consider it. 2) The same arguments against evolution come up stunningly regularly from different creationists...almost as if they all get a standard handbook of misconceptions and distortions of science, the scientific method, and evolution. Just yesterday a new poster arrived spewing several of the noted creationist distortions we have all heard hundreds of times yet again..this thread is a testament to the ease with which one CAN generalize about creationist thinking.

quote:

---

Also, when you say "supporters of science", I assume you are referring to (perhaps indirectly) Evolutionists, you must see that many Creationists see themselves as "supporters of science."

---

For reasons mentioned before, creationists have excluded themselves from being "supporters of science" as they have no hypothesis to test....most are armchair critics and nay sayers of scientific fields in which they have no background but derive their feelings of certainty from ignorance. That creationists fail to understand how belief and faith is not part of the scientific method and that the inability to even formulate a testable hypothesis excludes them from being "supporters of science".

quote:

---

I would say the real task in this debate is to examine the evidence we see, ask questions, and accept the strongest logical conclusion

---

I think the task of the debate is for advocates of science to see what the predominant misconceptions are among those with little or no background and try to address them. Examining the evidence requires actual research and training in order to achieve the competence with which to draw any conclusion. Only a minority of the people here (or anywhere) are willing to invest the time and energy to actually participate as active scientists or extremely knowledgeable laymen. To date, I have only encountered two creationists with a scientific background and niether of them specialized in fields related to evolution.

quote:

---

Yet my point is, that perhaps the strongest conclusion is not exactly what we have always thought to be true, and we must be willing to accept what science and logic tell us to accept. That is what science is all about, is it not? Finding the truth in the world by examining the evidence, even if it means tweaking our own beliefs? Truth is out there, and we must do our best to find it, even if it is not what we thought was true to begin with. Would you agree with this?

---

This statement is absolutely correct. That is why all scientific hypotheses, theories, etc. are tentative. They are the best description of natural observations to date based on being the best explanation possible. That does not mean that fundamental principles in science cannot be overturned and they are fairly regularly. Evolution is one of the most robust theories as it has gained support from multiple scientific disciplines, continues to do so, and has not been overturned. If a major evolutionary principle is going to be falsified, it will come from scientists using methodological naturalism and not from creationists using "goddidit" arguments or arguments from incredulity.

quote:

---

Finally to answer your last question, I'd like all views to be heard, and see if they survive the test of logic and science.

---

On this board, all views are welcome and are expressed. Welcome aboard.cheers,
M

I have to say one quick thing before starting a new thread about my comment on abiogenesis. I did not equate evolutionists with abiogenesists, I sais some are. But some are not of course, and that merely goes to show my point. Thanks for the other comments though, they were most helpful.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Hi Soracilla,
thanks for your clarification regarding abiogenesis and evolution. Note that there is an entire forum on the subject of abiogenesis "Origin of Life" which has recently become fairly active again. Looking forward to your contribution.
Cheers,
M

Mammathus,You comment, The scientific hypothesis for creation is that there is a Creator, and that all of the universe we can experience exists because this Creator put it there. It has meaning according to the purpose or whim of this Creator. "It is there for such or so reason in the mind of the Creator, or because it appealed to the subjective desires of the Creator." This is, in part, a psychological hypothesis, since it addresses the mind and emotions of the Creator.We postulate that this Creator is out there partly because we are living beings, and we create things. So, we suppose that there could be another living Being also creating things, even everything. We don't have much sensory information about this being, but earthworms don't have much sensory information about us, and we are out there in the earthworm's world. So, the Creator being could be out there, as well.But many postulate that this Creator is out there because of this extraordinary book called the Bible, which has a remarkable history as a document. The book presents itself as a message from the Creator to us. That makes sense. When we create things, we often make up a creator's manual telling how to deal with our creation. This book describes the psychology of the hypothetical Creator in some detail, and outlines several experiments anyone can do to falsify the reality of the Creator, if they are so inclined. For example, Malachi 3:10 says simply, as a message from the Creator, "prove Me now in this" outlining a titheing experiment that will either verify or falsify the Creator.But I like this experiment, because it uses strong inference, known to vastly improve the quality of science. If the creation theory is true, then the reproductive value of creation believing persons will be higher than that of evolutionists. This will be in part because believing the truth ought to improve one's adaptive fitness, the W of the population geneticists. Also, the primary mode of creation probably is artificial selection, where the Creator "blesses" with lots of children those who honor Him and give Him glory for His handiwork. If evolution is true, then creationists are wasting precious time and intellectual energy on something that isn't real, and are misguided. Then they ought to have a lower reproductive value than the evolutionists.In my many years of "evolution" research, it was the effect of behavior on reproductive value that was the gold standard.The data of course strongly support the theory of Creationism. The human sub-group with the highest W value are the "Plain People" the Amish and Mennonites, with over 9 children per couple, and 85% remaining in the community, having the same reproductive rate. Evolutionists do not seem to be replacing themselves, over-all. Nations with strong evolutionary teaching average barely, or less than, 2 children per female. The evolutionists, of course, ad hoc this finding by bringing up overpopulation theory, a theory which has yet to make a successful prediction, and which has been refuted by the data many times. Julian Simon's great book, "The Ultimate Resource" chronicles this very well. The creationists, of course, have predicted that evolutionists are so reproductively unsuccessful because they are deluded and deceived, in part by malignant spiritual beings also described in the Bible. This state of delusion is thus manifested as well in the claim by evolutionists that they are scientists. But, if they were scientists, they would have accepted the data on overpopulation theories, and changed their minds. However, instead they continue to defend the overpopulation theory by reason, which of course is not science.So, scientific testing of creation hypotheses is validated, while evolution is shown implausible, and evolutionists not scientists at all. Moreover, the creationist hypothesis, according to population genetics, will prevail by simply outbreeding the evolutionists. Evolution fits well into their model of the world as a sort of mental illness, that will soon be selected (artificially, of course) out of the species.

Stephen,Just a critique, not a personal attack. I hope by the end you can see the difference between a scientific and a philisophical theory.

quote:

---

The scientific hypothesis for creation is that there is a Creator, and that all of the universe we can experience exists because this Creator put it there. It has meaning according to the purpose or whim of this Creator. "It is there for such or so reason in the mind of the Creator, or because it appealed to the subjective desires of the Creator." This is, in part, a psychological hypothesis, since it addresses the mind and emotions of the Creator.

---

In science, we look for a measureable physical/chemical mechanisms that can be measured and are consistent with the data. Saying "God created the universe" falls short of this requirement. If you could show HOW God created the universe and illustrate the ongoing mechanism in physical/chemical units, then you would have a scientific theory. Saying "God did it" may loosely fit under hypothesis, but only in a very general way. There is no way to test the mechanisms. For example, we can measure the mutations in bacteria in scientific units, say 1 base change/million bacteria. Now, how many "God did it"'s are there in one million bacteria? I'm not trying to belittle creationism here, only showing the difference between creation theory and scientific theory.

quote:

---

We postulate that this Creator is out there partly because we are living beings, and we create things. So, we suppose that there could be another living Being also creating things, even everything. We don't have much sensory information about this being, but earthworms don't have much sensory information about us, and we are out there in the earthworm's world. So, the Creator being could be out there, as well.

---

There is not logical or chemical/physical requirement for a deity if life is present. This is an arbitrary postulation, a guess with no evidenciary support. As to sensory information, science has extended our perception of the world many fold thanks to the development of tools and instruments. The eye can't see the proton spin in a molecule of octane, but an NMR machine can. We can't see the wobble of a sun due to a close orbiting planet in the distant sky with our naked eyes, but a telescope can. The NMR machine and the radio telescope work within scientific theories to give us reliable information. However, even as we extend our perception farther and farther into the universe and the micro-verse, we never sense the machinations of a supernatural entity. Could a deity exist? Maybe. Will science ever find one? Probably not, and the chances are shrinking every day.

quote:

---

But many postulate that this Creator is out there because of this extraordinary book called the Bible, which has a remarkable history as a document. The book presents itself as a message from the Creator to us. That makes sense. When we create things, we often make up a creator's manual telling how to deal with our creation. This book describes the psychology of the hypothetical Creator in some detail, and outlines several experiments anyone can do to falsify the reality of the Creator, if they are so inclined. For example, Malachi 3:10 says simply, as a message from the Creator, "prove Me now in this" outlining a titheing experiment that will either verify or falsify the Creator.

---

I think even the most ardent fundamentalist christian can agree with this statement: "God did not write the Bible." Saying "God inspired the writings of the Biblical Authors" is probably a closer approximation to the belief held by most christians. Please correct me if you feel I have overstep my bounds here. What it comes down to, though, is that MEN wrote the bible. As a historical document, I would agree that it is a very fascinating book, as is the Epic of Gilgamesh. But how do we determine what is inspired and what is directly conveyed? How do we separate the relation of a story through allegory and the relation of a story through actual events? How do we trust the fallibility of man to transmit an infallible message? In science, the fallibility of man is drastically reduced through open methodology and repeatibility. If someone can't copy your work, then the work is meaningless. If creation theory is going to further itself, it must separate itself from the possible fallibility of the biblical authors by substantiating the six day creation within a scientific framework instead of through a faith derived axioms. As to testing the Creator through tithing, I have tried that and it didn't work. But that wasn't the reason I tithed, I did it because it made me feel part of the christian community. Anecdotal evidence may show a connection, but you would be hard pressed to find a double-blind study that illustrates a tie between tithing and wish granting. For instance, do you think Steve Forbes or Bill Gates tithe? They seem pretty blessed. Anecdotal evidence is fun, but ultimately useless.

quote:

---

But I like this experiment, because it uses strong inference, known to vastly improve the quality of science. If the creation theory is true, then the reproductive value of creation believing persons will be higher than that of evolutionists. This will be in part because believing the truth ought to improve one's adaptive fitness, the W of the population geneticists. Also, the primary mode of creation probably is artificial selection, where the Creator "blesses" with lots of children those who honor Him and give Him glory for His handiwork. If evolution is true, then creationists are wasting precious time and intellectual energy on something that isn't real, and are misguided. Then they ought to have a lower reproductive value than the evolutionists.

---

The Creator seems to bless non-christians such as Hindus in India and Confuscians and Buddhists in China. Believing in the Christian God does not explain population booms in those countries, and so it doesn't explain the population booms in Christian/Creationist countries either. Education and Economic levels in general, irrespective of evo/creo, seem to be correlated with reproductive rates. Without a bias for one religion over another, IOW a subjective bias, this theory falls apart. On top of this, mechanisms are still lacking. What makes God fearing creationists more productive? Well, "God did it".

quote:

---

In my many years of "evolution" research, it was the effect of behavior on reproductive value that was the gold standard.

---

The effects of sexual selection and instinct evolution have been understood for quite a while, and are part of the theory. It still doesn't rule out opening new niches when competition over resources causes uneven reproductive values between two populations.

quote:

---

The data of course strongly support the theory of Creationism. The human sub-group with the highest W value are the "Plain People" the Amish and Mennonites, with over 9 children per couple, and 85% remaining in the community, having the same reproductive rate. Evolutionists do not seem to be replacing themselves, over-all. Nations with strong evolutionary teaching average barely, or less than, 2 children per female. The evolutionists, of course, ad hoc this finding by bringing up overpopulation theory, a theory which has yet to make a successful prediction, and which has been refuted by the data many times. Julian Simon's great book, "The Ultimate Resource" chronicles this very well. The creationists, of course, have predicted that evolutionists are so reproductively unsuccessful because they are deluded and deceived, in part by malignant spiritual beings also described in the Bible. This state of delusion is thus manifested as well in the claim by evolutionists that they are scientists. But, if they were scientists, they would have accepted the data on overpopulation theories, and changed their minds. However, instead they continue to defend the overpopulation theory by reason, which of course is not science.

---

Anecdotal without reference to a mechanism. This is important. For instance, cancer rates can be correlated to the proximity to power lines. However, without a mechanism by which high voltage and EMF can cause cancer the relationship can not be drawn. I could also correlate many unrelated things such as dog collar colors and the average temperature during March. I haven't read up on "overpopulation theory", maybe you could start a new thread, I would be interested. But I am guessing that nowhere in the refutation does it say that lower reproductive rates are caused by not believing in Vishnu. Why not? Because it is not scientific.

quote:

---

So, scientific testing of creation hypotheses is validated, while evolution is shown implausible, and evolutionists not scientists at all. Moreover, the creationist hypothesis, according to population genetics, will prevail by simply outbreeding the evolutionists. Evolution fits well into their model of the world as a sort of mental illness, that will soon be selected (artificially, of course) out of the species.

---

Where did you show that evolution was implausible? I must have missed it. Maybe you were referencing a previous post? But just a question for you about "breeding out evolutionists". If evolutionists were breed out and every scientific book was lost, could the theory be rediscovered? I would say yes. If all christians were breed out and the Bible lost, could the Christian Creator be rediscovered? No. It exists as a belief system, not something that was discovered through scientific inquiry into the natural world. Creationism is the propagation of ideas while evolutionary theory is the best explanation of physical observations. Oh, and the other scientific theories could be rediscovered as well, such as Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, Fluid Dynamics, etc. Why? Because they are based on observation and are not dependent on a faith system.

In Message 24 of this topic, RaSBeY offers the following statistic: "The human sub-group with the highest W value are the 'Plain People,' the Amish and Mennonites, with over 9 children per couple ..." to support his theory that "believing in truth [Christian Creationism] improves one's [reproductive] fitness."Years ago, I picked up produce from the Plain People of Pennsylvania and Western Maryland. I never once noticed any T.V. antenae, radios, or much else in the way of entertainment other than watching the "birds and the bees" and the occasional Amish Country equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster hit, "Spring Field Fever," subtitled "Hey, Hezekiah, Come Quick, Beaureguard is Mounting Elsie!" Not to mention that, lacking electricity, a majority of the community hits the sack within a hour past sundown. Add these factors to a strong indocrination in "go forth, multiply, and be plentiful," plus total disregard for birth control, and you have all the makings of huge families regardless of individual sperm counts or female fertility rates.Come to think of it though, how does this theory of RaSBeY's figure with regard to the gross overpopulation in the Buddhist Orient?

I understand where you're comming from loudmouth, but you have to understand the Creationist mindset as well. A Creationist would believe (usually) that their God is omnipotent and living outside of time. Thus he created the chemical/physical laws you are referring to. From that premise, I think its easy to see the scientific hypothesis in the Creationists mindset, seeing that their God created the laws of science, and has complete power to do whatever he sees fit. Thats what I've gained from talking to various Creationist friends of mine, and I've also gained that my Evolutionist friends tend to agree with me.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

SoracillaI am glad you brought up this point I have seen this statement made often enough for me to think it it a widespread notion.However if you look at it it makes no sense. First of all you postulate that God is outside time [without evidence] which means,to me, that he has no posssible connection to the physiacal world since we are aware that space and time are joined at the hip so to speak. Since this is the stated case where do you suppose comes the ability to manipulate the very spacetime that He is not a part of?Seems like wishful thinking? here.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

Soracilla,I have recently started judging forensic debates, and wonder where you learned to identify these logical errors. Or maybe, what you would recommend as a tidy source that could perhaps be developed into a rule book/handout that I could pass on to coaches and debaters and judges.Also, I wonder if I might entice you to look at Debates That Matter, a thread here, and consider volunteering as a judge for debates, where the participants agreed beforehand to accept your "refereeing," calls, and judgments. I may be the only member wanting such an "official" calling fouls and scores, giving penalties, and such like. But, maybe not. If there was such a refereed debate, I am sure it would attract as much healthy attention as refereed sports do, in comparison to the sand-lot playing that goes on all over the place.Stephen

How long has man, not cavemen, but men, been on the earth?