Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Personal Philosophy
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 11 of 15 (550959)
03-19-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 4:42 PM


Flyer75 writes:
My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.
Would proof make you an evolutionist?
Science doesn't deal in absolute certainty. While the evidence may in some cases be so conclusive that a theory is beyond reasonable doubt, theories are never absolutely "proven", they can only be disproven. Universal common descent through evolution by natural selection could be disproven in several ways, including if:
  • A truly unevolvable irreducibly complex biological system is found.
  • Species are found inexplicably out of order in the fossil record (ie. the cambrian rabbit)
  • A single species is found to be genetically unrelated to all other life (this would only disprove truly universal common descent)
If any one of these were found to be true, but particularly the first two, the theory of evolution would have to be abandoned or very much altered. I wouldn't hold out hope though. People have been looking to disprove the theory and haven't been successful yet. The point is, evolution can be disproved. And if it really isn't true, then we should have expected droves of "creation scientists" to have turned up some disproof by now. But who knows? Maybe they will.
Accepting a scientific theory means that you are bound to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's why true science is not dogmatic. And that's why I don't like the term 'evolutionist'. It implies that a person who simply accepts scientific findings holds a particular allegiance to one theory. I can only speak for myself, but if bunnies were conclusively found to have hopped alongside trilobites and giant dragonflies in the cambrian, I'd be the first to go looking for another explanation. I would no more mourn the loss of the theory of evolution than I mourned losing my belief in Santa Claus.
But what about creationists? As you yourself said:
Flyer75 writes:
Creationists, at least honest ones, will say that they first live and believe by faith and faith alone
And that's the difference between a scientist and a creationist. For a creationist who believes only by faith, no amount of evidence will change their mind. That's why I asked you whether "proof" would really make a difference to you. If you accept creationism on faith, then what value does evidence have in moulding your worldview?
And that's why I always raise an eyebrow when I hear dogmatic creationists (not saying that you are dogmatic) ask "Well, where's the evidence?" I could ask them the same question, but what would be the point? To the truly dogmatic creationist, no evidence is required to believe that which is accepted on faith, and no evidence is enough to give credence to any theory that conflicts with that faith.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024