Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
50 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
nator
Member (Idle past 721 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 210 (358833)
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence.

I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them. I'll list them below.

1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public

2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science

Most of the time, Creationists don't really put forth these statements in such bold language, but they are, indeed, the logical consequence to the claim that they make; that Evolution is not supported by the evidence or is false.

One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.

If concept A, is discovered, replicated, and overall shown to be reliable, this will lead to concept B, which is based upon what we know about A.

If B also turns out to be reliable, this is also confirmation of concept A. And so on, and so on and so on...

If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years? The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail. Research using it as a guide should never advance much, if at all.

How is it that predictions keep being made based upon the ToE that are subsequently borne out?

Are scientists really all liars and crooks, maintaining an elaborate deception on not only an unwitting public but also upon the entire scientific community?

Or, are Biologists simply so incredibly poor at doing science that they don't realize that all of their experiments have failed?

Is it Science?, please.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 10-25-2006 7:24 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2006 7:33 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-26-2006 11:07 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-26-2006 12:14 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 32 by truthlover, posted 10-26-2006 4:16 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:53 PM nator has responded
 Message 43 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:50 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 2:09 PM nator has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 210 (358844)
10-25-2006 6:46 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 210 (358852)
10-25-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


Due to admin concerns, I am not participating on science threads.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=412&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=412&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=412&m=1

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2006 7:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 10-25-2006 7:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 4 of 210 (358856)
10-25-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


No creationist but....
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2006 10:38 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 5 of 210 (358857)
10-25-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
10-25-2006 7:24 PM


This one is not really science as such....
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 10-25-2006 7:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1064 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 6 of 210 (358861)
10-25-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
10-25-2006 7:24 PM


I know you've been disallowed before on the science threads. One time was shortly after I got here--you and I ended up in the shell game war.

but I think that this topic is sufficiently different enough from the other science threads (as this one isn't dealing with evidence per se, but the creo take on scientists). there shouldn't be a problem with you participating in this thread--and besides, I just know how you want to (noone here can resist debate. otherwise, you wouldn't be here, or me, for that matter).


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 10-25-2006 7:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-25-2006 8:10 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 210 (358868)
10-25-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
10-25-2006 7:44 PM


I know you've been disallowed before on the science threads.

I'm not "disallowed." It was my own suggestion in response to the expressed views of admin , that I stay away from science threads for some lengthy period of time at least, because of my being such a high-volume poster. The basic idea is that creationists with more scientific knowledge may be more motivated to participate here if there's less of my kind of debate, whatever that is.

Also, I've many times addressed this same question/accusation of Schraf's, many times. She continues with her view and I continue with mine.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 10-25-2006 7:44 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 10-26-2006 7:16 AM Faith has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 721 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 210 (358945)
10-26-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-25-2006 8:10 PM


quote:
Also, I've many times addressed this same question/accusation of Schraf's, many times.

No, you haven't adequately addressed this claim, Faith.

You have never addressed the issue of how it is that current scientific work can continue to progress if it is all based upon an utter falsehood perpetuated only through indoctrination or habit.

You have never addressed the concept of science being cumulative and progressive; with concepts A, B, and C being the basis of concepts D, E, and F, and so on.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-25-2006 8:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 10-26-2006 9:02 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 12:46 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 210 (358955)
10-26-2006 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
10-26-2006 7:16 AM


schraf writes:

You have never addressed the issue of how it is that current scientific work can continue to progress if it is all based upon an utter falsehood perpetuated only through indoctrination or habit.

You have never addressed the concept of science being cumulative and progressive; with concepts A, B, and C being the basis of concepts D, E, and F, and so on.


I don't think you're being vague enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 10-26-2006 7:16 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 10 of 210 (358985)
10-26-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


I think we can look at some of the reaction of creos as part of the self image of themselves. It is fair to say (I would contend) that the beliefs we hold become tied up in our percepion of who we are.

This hold true for religious or scientific concepts as we can see religious wars and wars of words between two conflicting theorist being an extraplotion of this.

1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public

2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science

I think that anyone would level the above form of criticism only as a last resort as it is form of violence against the person/people addressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 11 of 210 (359014)
10-26-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


Some obvious consequences
of "evolution is false".

  • the alleged great flood still didn't happen;
  • there were still biologically modern humans, long before the alleged time of Adam and Eve;
  • the creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 still contradict one another.


    Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-26-2006 1:55 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 12 of 210 (359022)
    10-26-2006 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by nator
    10-26-2006 7:16 AM


    You have never addressed the issue of how it is that current scientific work can continue to progress if it is all based upon an utter falsehood perpetuated only through indoctrination or habit.

    I have addressed this completely. True science goes on irrespective of the overarching theories under which it is forced to labor, because its focus is on physical particulars that can be objectively handled. It makes true observations, and comes to useful conclusions in spite of the theory, which is mere backdrop in some cases. So, you can know a lot about genetics that is useful in spite of the theory of evolution, and about geology in spite of the geological timetable. Where the theory is the guiding concept or the focus of the investigation, the science will be based on false assumptions and led to false conclusions, but useful facts may be acquired nevertheless.

    You have never addressed the concept of science being cumulative and progressive; with concepts A, B, and C being the basis of concepts D, E, and F, and so on.

    I'm sure I have, many times. I've answered you up one side and down the other, as I have done above. You just don't like my answers. Also, for this to make sense, you have to provide particulars.

    MY MISTAKE. THIS IS A SCIENCE THREAD. LAST POST HERE.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by nator, posted 10-26-2006 7:16 AM nator has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2006 12:55 PM Faith has responded

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 18 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 13 of 210 (359025)
    10-26-2006 12:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
    10-26-2006 12:46 PM


    It makes true observations, and comes to useful conclusions in spite of the theory, which is mere backdrop in some cases.

    Not so. "Observation is theory-laden", as they say. Absent theory you don't even know which observations to make, or which are significant.

    Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. If you're not building on what came before, you're starting at ground zero. How could it be any other way?

    So, you can know a lot about genetics that is useful in spite of the theory of evolution

    But it doesn't make sense except in the light of evolution; absent the light of evolution you don't know how to proceed, what questions to ask next.

    Anybody can hand out an asprin, splint a broken wrist, wash a wound. The difference between a doctor and a shaman is that a doctor knows why those things work, and it's because of his knowledge of medical theory that the doctor is able to develop new treatments, answer new questions, instead of just stumbling into things by trial and error.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 12:46 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 1:49 PM crashfrog has responded

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 14 of 210 (359040)
    10-26-2006 1:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
    10-26-2006 12:55 PM


    How DNA operates can be studied and understood with or without the ToE.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2006 12:55 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2006 2:15 PM Faith has responded

      
    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 2149 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 15 of 210 (359041)
    10-26-2006 1:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
    10-26-2006 12:14 PM


    Re: Some obvious consequences
    nwr:

    If "evolution is false".

    - the alleged great flood still didn't happen;
    - there were still biologically modern humans, long before the alleged time of Adam and Eve;
    - the creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 still contradict one another.

    If evolution was shown to be false, creationists would throw a party--and come crashing to the floor with a terrible hangover. They'd remain on that floor a good long time.

    Creationists have convinced themselves that creationism automatically wins anytime evolution loses. In their moment of supposed triumph they would find out this isn't true. Science would still be science, learning everything it can and moving on. The creationists would be hard put to know what to do next.

    _


    Archer

    All species are transitional.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by nwr, posted 10-26-2006 12:14 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 2:05 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020