Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.
You need to elaborate on this one.However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.
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?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.
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?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.
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.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).
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.Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.
Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?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.
Or did I get you wrong?
Bookmarks