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
™ Version 4.2