quote:
Didn't mean to insult you by exposing your ignorance of this, or your trust of "authorities" that have asserted dogmatically, religiously actually, that such experiments are impossible or never happened. Hey, it's Satan's job to make a fool of you. It's your job to decide whether you want to let that happen, or would rather face the pain of knowing that you believed something that someone evil wanted you to believe, and got you to believe.
Stephen ben Yeshua
The risk of not believing in evolution--whether it be true or not--is dying while feeling ridiculed and mocked by "educated people"... but the risk of not following Christ and believing that God made us all the way we are is dying and facing eternity in hell.
Servant2thecause (ellipsis in original)
Both of these quotes were made during the past week here at EvC. The insults and threats upon which these arguments are based draw a clear picture of the lack of empirical support for creationism, as well as its appeal for the psychologically unstable. The message is, as always, believe or else. Nevertheless, the proponents of creationism insist on calling their pet concept a scientific alternative to evolution by natural selection.
In his 1981 decision in
McLean vs. Arkansas,
Judge William R. Overton outlined four criteria that describe a scientific theory:
1. It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory by references to natural laws.
2. Science is testable against the empirical world.
3. Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.
4. It is falsifiable
How many of these criteria does creationism meet?
1) The basis of methodological naturalism (MN hereafter) is the universal application of natural law. The only ‘belief’ that need be accepted to engage in scientific inquiry is that cause and effect are consistent. If natural law cannot be universally applied, then we would expect scientific endeavor to be impractical at best, impossible at worst. The creationists want it both ways. Their methodology can propose miraculous intervention and the occasional nullification of natural law, but their theory is supposed to be accepted on scientific grounds. Creationism does not meet this criterion, since it ‘explains’ natural phenomena solely through the mechanism of miraculous intervention.
2) The mechanisms of evolution (DNA recombination and natural selection, principally) are testable, verifiable phenomena. Their existence does not depend on Darwin’s theory, so they can be used to support the theory of evolution by natural selection. Unfortunately for creationism, there is no way to test for the intervention or guidance of a purposeful creator. Consider this: the creation
ex nihilo of organisms in a lab environment would only change our concept of heredity, but would give us no reason to assume that this phenomenon is the result of purposeful activity by a creator. The only support for any teleological ‘explanation’ is that certain phenomena are ‘too unlikely’ to have occurred without purpose or intent, and such assertions are of no use to scientific endeavor.
3) Evolution by Darwinian means is a perfect metaphor for responsible scientific procedure: the theory is subjected to round after round of empirical testing, and becomes stronger as a result. When new conditions prevail (due to new scientific discoveries or technology), the theory must meet these conditions or die. At no time do we assume that the theory can be exempted from further testing: every new discovery must either support the theory, or the theory must adapt to accommodate it. Since creationism has no consistent timelines and ‘explains’ all empirical data with the same skyward glance, new evidence would not have any effect on the theory. Creationism fails on this criterion as well, because it does not gain value through advances in other areas of scientific knowledge.
4) If evidence came to light that differential reproductive success had no effect on the frequency of alleles in a population, or that traits were not heritable, the theory of evolution would be falsified. If human fossils were found in all geological strata, the concept of common ancestry would be indefensible. Creationism, on the other hand, fails the final criterion: it makes no testable predictions, and therefore no conceivable empirical evidence can falsify it. Since the whims of a creator can’t be predicted, any data can support the argument that everything exists according to the creator’s intent. This is of no use to scientific endeavor, because there’s no way to distinguish between random phenomena and ones that the creator intended to appear random.
Beliefs about our purpose on Earth, or our destiny after we die, have to be held on faith. Scientific theories have to be grounded in empirical evidence. There are persuasive scientific reasons to accept the theory of evolution by natural selection. None of these reasons are applicable to creationism.
regards,
Esteban "Doubting" Hambre
™ Version 4.2
