quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
This is an interesting question, posed from either the evolutionists or creationists point of view. For myself, and assuming you are referring to macro-evolution, there would have to be a tremendous amount of undeniable proof. Not just evidence that could be used as a support for the ToE, but real, undeniable proof. This would not necessarily negate my belief in creation although it would require me to change my understanding of creation. I was surprised to find this thread because just today I was thinking to myself what it would take to convince some evolutionists that creation was correct and evolution was incorrect.
First, congratulations on an excellent initial post. Welcome to the forum.
Moose, I think, has mentioned that "proof" is not the realm of science. Science
observes facts or phenomena, then develops
theories to explain the observations. A scientific theory cannot, unfortunately, be "proven". Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc, are not "proven". However, scientific theories spawn numerous
hypotheses - statements or predictions based on some part of a theory - which CAN be tested. If the test, which must be replicatable by other scientists, shows the hypothesis to be invalid, then either the specific prediction was incorrect, or something is wrong with the theory. If the hypothesis is valid, otoh, it doesn't "prove" the theory is correct - merely that one particular aspect of the theory (the testable hypothesis it spawned) has been validated. Science tends to be very parsimonious with the label "theory" - to be acceptable, a theory must undergo numerous tests. If it fails consistently, it gets scrapped. If it passes consistently, then it can be said we are asymptotically approaching truth (not that the theory is true). In science, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the criteria. If it fails part of the time but passes some tests, then it generally is revised. Even once an idea is graced with the term "theory" by the concensus of those scientists who study the phenomena, it doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. (Newton's theory was ultimately subsumed in Einstein's relativity, which was in turn subsumed in Schrodinger
et al quantum mechanics - I can't wait to see what happens next...).
If you are so convinced that so-called "macroevolution" is impossible, perhaps you'd care to explain why? What and where is the barrier that prevents RM&NS (the processes of "microevolution") over time from leading to changes in higher taxa? How does this barrier work? What evidence is there that such a barrier exists? (Hint: the statement "We haven't seen it happening." is NOT evidence. You haven't seen your deity happening either. You weren't present at the First Event. Unfortunately, pRNA didn't invent camcorders while inventing autocatalysis and self-replication. Too bad Adam and Eve didn't either.)
quote:
For many, I suppose nothing short of their death, with them finding themselves standing before the God they have rejected, with God proclaiming to them that He and He alone created all things and did so by His Word, by His speaking all things into existance, nothing short of that may be required to convince many evolutionists.
Actually, there's quite a bit that would lend credence to creationism. There are a number of other threads that discuss possibilities. IMO, you'd need to start out by showing that your particular interpretation of deity was correct, and all the rest of the world was wrong and going to hell (or whatever trips your trigger for those who deny your particular cult). After that, you could try making a couple of testable hypotheses showing undeniable evidence of divine intervention. It would have to be something pretty spectacular to convince me - maybe like a booming voice out of the sky heard simultaneously all over the world by every individual in their own language. Hey, if He wants people to fall down and worship, He needs to get their attention first.
quote:
Now, what would it take for most creationists to accept evolution? Well, no doubt there are some that would not accept it regardless of the amount of evidence or even the presentation of solid and undeniable proof. Most, however, would be able to rationalize it and still allow it to fit within the concept of creation.
This doesn't answer the question: what would constitute such evidence?
quote:
Already today there are those who accept that God did indeed create through the process of evolution. But for myself, it would have to be proof and not merely evidence. Evidence is a great tool but it has been known to lead educated men and women down a path of error and misunderstanding. Religious beliefs have also been known to lead educated men and women down a path of error and misunderstanding.
Once again, you are requiring that science provide that which science cannot - and never claimed. Evidence - the evidence of the incredible diversity and at the same time relatedness of all life - is the only thing that matters. I concur that misinterpreting evidence can lead scientists down the primrose path. However, the scientific method contains built-in error correcting mechanisms. No hypothesis (let alone a theory) will be accepted as valid unless the same test can be applied by other scientists. There are, in fact, scientists who've built their entire careers on debunking the ideas of other scientists. Even the worst errors of science are sooner or later corrected by other scientists (cold fusion comes to mind, as does
Archeoraptor, Haeckel's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, etc). No scientific error has EVER been corrected or even detected by a non-scientist.
Can you point to a single instance of religious beliefs being self-corrected?
quote:
When science and religion, and those who promote them, realize that they are not such strange bedfellows after all, the journey to real knowledge and ultimate truth will have taken a great leap forward. Truth is Undeniable, Unchangeable, and Immoveable. Knowledge must always take second place to truth. Even when it seems as though it must be right. Only then will real knowledge lead to the ultimate truth. And truth, once found, can never be denied.......it can only be rejected!
I disagree. Science and religion are the original odd couple. They deal with completely separate and incompatible magisteria. Science deals with what
is. Religion deals with what
comes after. Science makes no claim to ethics or morality - any more than does nature itself. That is the proper purview of religion and belief. As long as this separation is understood and maintained, there is no conflict. Many people, some on this board, hold belief in God fully compatible with evolution and see no problem, as their religion speaks to a different aspect of their lives.
Science most assuredly makes no claim to "Undeniable, Unchangeable, and Immovable" Truth (TM). The conflict arises when the highly vocal but statistically insignificant Protestant fundamentalists demand that science become subservient to their literalist interpretation of an ancient religious text, and that it conform to the dictat of their
narrow, xenophobic worldview. The evolution-deniers do so by rejecting the evidence. Evidence which, btw, has shown evolution to be true "beyond reasonable doubt".
™ Version 4.2
