Evolution v Creationism

[Reenk Roink]

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

[Kadagar_AV]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.



As an example, my personal belief or knowledge tells me mind reading exists, as I have witnessed things in my life that lead me, personally, to this conclusion. I can try to convince you too. However, I would NEVER say it's scientificly proven that mind reading exists just because I think/know so, as I can't have you repeat the same things I have been through.

It does not mean I am unsure about mind reading, it just means I can not prove it scientificly.

In my example, I believe science one day will reach the same conclusion I did, that mind reading to in fact exist.

And if YOU are sure God exists, then why oppose science? IF God exists, i am sure science will come to that conclusion sooner or later. As it seems today though, there is no evidence of a God, or a creator.

Did this make it more clear?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.

[Reenk Roink]

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.

I understand what you are trying to say Kadagar, if you do remove the metaphysical assumption of a creator, then creationism has the rug pulled from underneath it.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

You have given a demarcation criterion: testability (also falsifiability). Good.

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect. In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

[Lemur]

When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor.

Not exactly. Evolution is a process, not a description of the world. You can test the evolutionary process with a jar full of fruit flies. It's tested every day in pharmaceutical companies. It's the law of the land. If viruses were not capable of evolving, drug companies would be in very bad shape, indeed. One antibiotic would do us for the rest of eternity.

The notion that we emerged from a common ancestor with the great apes is a logical thought once you've accepted evolutionary theory, but the theory itself is pretty neutral on the subject. If it turned out that we evolved from, say, stingrays, evolutionary theory would be fine with that. Or if we uncovered evidence that homo sapien had been around much longer than previously thought, this would do nothing to discredit the theory,

We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning. Theism and scientific theory are perfectly compatible.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

[Reenk Roink]

Yeah, the macro evolutionary claims are extrapolations. Take micro evolutionary claims as the one that are testable. The point is that the claims it makes are testable.

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning.

Yes it does...

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

They are incompatible, sure.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on...

In this vein they are exactly alike.

[Lemur]

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. Thus your "outside our sensory perception" formulation trips over its own feet (and are there non-sensory perceptions?)

I think you're referring in an oblique and unclear way to spiritual reality versus the physical world. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

[Kadagar_AV]

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

I second that.

But that does not mean you can dismiss my last post.

Please do attack it

[Reenk Roink]

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think it's pretty well known that young earth creations empirically claim things. There are many claims (some are linked below).

Enjoy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...g-age-evidence

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

How am I seeming to believe any of these things you attribute to me by bringing up the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection rests on the metaphysical views of naturalism and realism?

Please provide the statement of my beliefs.

I have already defined these many times, but I will do it again (copy paste makes it easy):

realism: there exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it

naturalism: all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws

To believe in the conclusions reached by evolutionary theory you have to accept these positions in some form. They aren't empirically testable whatsoever. They can't be. They're metaphysics.

It makes no sense to say evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of naturalism and realism. Analogously it makes no sense to say that creationism is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of a creator god.

What we check is the empirical claims of evolutionary theory. These are clearly testable. But then, so are the empirical claims of creationism

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

But I have repeatedly stated them...

You seem to not like my explanations of them so here are some links:

Realism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

Naturalism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Just consider what these metaphysical positions are and then maybe you will reconsider your positions that:

"evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean"

and

"evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral"

(what does "neutral" mean even)

and

"understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview"

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

What exactly do you mean by "outside forces"? If you mean court decisions and what not, then yes, that is certainly part of it with the "intelligent design" movement and all (although this kind of stuff happens in the so called scientific community as well).

But they certainly alter their positions on other outside forces too, like data, evolutionary claims, and so on.

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

But I already did? In the very next line after the one you quoted too...

"The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on..."

I have no idea how one can dismiss something as specific as creationist claims on the age of the earth as "vague generalities" but man, you did it.

But here, the link may satisfy you more than my word:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html
and more...

I never thought it wasn't common knowledge that young earth creationists made claims that there was a global flood or that the earth is 10000 years old or such.

Now here is the kicker:

The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...

This is why it makes absolutely no sense to just dismiss creationism as not being science by virtue of appealing to demarcation criteria like testability and falsifiability.

Better yet not to make this demarcation and I don't know, actually treat creationism like falsified theories like phlogistic chemistry?

After all, stating that the claim that the earth is around 10000 years old has been tested and falsified in many ways is a lot more convincing than saying that "creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable" when it demonstrably isn't.

Finally, just so you won't go and claim I am a creationist or other misrepresentations, I linked to these sites because you asked for them. I'm not here to speak about how good or bad these tests are, how good or bad these empirical claims are.

I am merely demonstrating that creationists DO make empirical claims.

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.

In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.



You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"




Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.




That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...



Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.



Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.




Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

[Kadagar_AV]

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

No, that is only one version of what naturalism means in the intellectual society.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nat⋅u⋅ral⋅ism   /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun 1. Literature. a. a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
b. a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life. Compare realism (def. 4b).
c. a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
d. the depiction of the physical environment, esp. landscape or the rural environment.

2. (in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature. Compare idealism (def. 4), realism (def. 3a).
3. action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.
4. Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5. Theology. a. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
b. the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6. adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

Please do elaborate on this one...

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Must I again explain that empirical data has nothing to do with science of this level - what so ever.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

Are you even aware of what empirical means?

For maybe the fifth (?) time, empirical data is NOT, again: NOT worth a damn.

If we were giving in to empirical data, we would still have forests filled with trolls and goblins. We have advanced a bit since then, haven't we?

*with "we" I mean "me"*

[Reenk Roink]

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

Do statements like these even dignify a response?

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time.

[ajaxfetish]

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

We assume the existence of cause and effect. We assume that, other factors remaining constant, causes will have the same effect regardless of place and time. And so forth.

A religious approach to the natural world requires more assumptions than 'pure' science, and thus according to Ockham's razor (itself an assumption of sorts) is less preferable. The real distinction is that we all, religious or otherwise, accept the assumptions on which science is predicated. Religious assumptions, however widespread, are not universal.

Personally, I have opinions similar to Seamus and Don Corleone on the matter. I think theistic evolution is entirely possible. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't really matter whether I think that spark of randomness comes from some metaphysical being. I rely on science to know the what and the how of it all.

Ajax

[Jolt]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

What about Viking Creationism? I'm sure they have some good claims too.