Evolution v Creationism

[Reenk Roink]

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

To Rhyfelwyr, if you want to learn about evolution in a detailed way, first take a general biology class and then pick up a copy of Futuyama's Evolution. Though you might want to take a class on evolution that uses that book (hard to get through). Will tell you all you need to know about principles and mechanics in general (unless you want to know the specifics of a certain organism's evolution).

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is just too much stuff in this world to learn about... history, philosophy, theology, biology, anthropology, politics... ugh. I'm starting to wonder how anyone can ever give a meaningful opinion on anything except their specialised subject.

The thing is they all tie together in a person's worldview so its hard to focus on one and know you might be missing something important in the other.

Like I used to say to my classmates when they talked about political stuff at school - "do you have a degree in economics?, and if not then maybe you should stop giving opinions and accept that other people know better". I would make a really inspiring teacher wouldn't I?

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus Fermanagh, I claimed the topic was stupid, not the OP. You can never compare science and belief, and by doing so you fool lesser intellects into believing there is actually a serious debate about it, where there are none.



Rhyfelwyr, you know god exists, fair enough. Some people are equally sure aliens exist, or ghosts, or dragons or...

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove, and have others repeat the same experiments and come to the same conclusion based on the facts at hand.

So, you know God exists? Good for you! However, if you want to bring your own personal belief, or knowledge as you think of it, into a scientific discussion, you will have to accept to take the discussion on scientifical terms. IE, what you know is 100% worthless to others unless you can prove it (again, from a scientific perspective).

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

SCIENCE has no interest in disproving God. It is followers of religion who have to scientificly prove gods existance, if they want to bring him into scientifical matters. Or, in this example, scientificly prove there was a creator. Untill you can do that, there is no debate creationism vs evolution, as you bring a football to a hockey game.



Reenk Roink,

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove,

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

[Jolt]

Evolution? Creationism? Nonsense! It is obvious that human beings descended from the British islands, which proves the superiority of their race!

[rasoforos]

There must have been like 50 of these posts the past 7 years...if not more.

So I ll sit this one out because the dread of deja-vu is overwhelming.

P.S I have prehensile toes...

[Kadagar_AV]

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.



Rhyfelwyr,

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

The evidence for evolution is strong enough for it to be seen as the only plausible theory.

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

BBC and others have had some great programs lately, just watch them, judge for yourself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

[Kadagar_AV]

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

Problem here is, none of us (I believe) is qualified to explain this to you.

This means that a failure to make you believe in evolution is due to OUR inability to explain the theory correctly, not because of the theory itself.

Get my point?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is.

1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Creationism could be exactly the same as normal science, if you explain the Big Bang by "God did it". You can also dispute there was ever a Big bang, there are alternative theories, however all science seems to point at an origin of the universe and even precious fractions of a second thereafter, mathematically speaking.

The only claim creationism can make that's any different from actual science is how, and the order in which, things were created. The how is God; that's not exactly testable, is it? And in which order, that's not quite testable at this point either, but we do have strong evidence from the fossil record, from observing thermodynamics and gravity and the current motion of planets, stars, and the galaxies, the redshift, and all other physical phenomena which seems to lead to the conclusion that events happened along a path very similar at the very least, if not exactly like, current Big Bang theory and the resulting explanations about the motion and settling of objects in the universe.

What claim, Rhyfelwyr, Sasaki, anyone.... what claim does creationism make besides God did it? Is there a specific dispute with evolution or big bang? If they are saying everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago involving a supernatural deity, there is no evidence of that; it's pure belief. If they are saying it happened millions or billions of years ago but the process has been sped up by God, there's no evidence of that either. Some believe in an inflationary period of the universe based on math, but that didn't last very long in the cosmological sense.

Creationism covers a wide variety of theories, from the plausible (Big Bang, but not in the Godless sense... Big Bang being evidence of God's existence ) to the implausible (Biblical creationism from 6 to tens of thousands of years ago, with God creating creatures specifically in a certain order which seems to have been disproved by the fossil record and many other things that we think about evolution of cells and organisms) so perhaps we should... define our terms.

*scary violin noise* *shower stabbing scene from Psycho*

If creationism is just current scientific theory, but coupled with "I think God is the reason behind the science" then whatever, that's valid enough. But if you say "Scientific findings by the majority of scientists are wrong because my religion says.... plus this theory by a religious scientist which has been discredited or can never be proven says..." then it's not science, it's religion.

[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.

[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?

[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.