tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329289809056681372.post4007581744659447142..comments2024-02-01T07:59:05.302-07:00Comments on The Atlantis Blog: The Creationism vs. Evolution DebateEltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12111706553184455710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329289809056681372.post-86568031715629343472011-09-10T21:53:36.744-07:002011-09-10T21:53:36.744-07:00"the two theories can co-exist peacefully and..."the two theories can co-exist peacefully and people can choose for themselves which theory feels right for them."<br /><br />???<br />So scientists just go with their feelings, not evidence?<br /><br />"they are going to have to prove that there is no Intelligence in the Universe in order to prove that their theory is valid."<br /><br />Seriously? Prove a negative? <br /><br />"After all, it takes faith to believe in both theories."<br /><br />I don't think you really understand evolution (or science) if you think theories are accepted or rejected based on faith. But I'm curious if you think any other scientific theories are just leaps of faith...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329289809056681372.post-88266449238206569312010-11-25T17:00:52.677-07:002010-11-25T17:00:52.677-07:00Hello,
I am curious about your argument that scie...Hello,<br /><br />I am curious about your argument that science equally supports both creationism and evolution -- that science is somehow "in the middle" between the two. It seems clear to me that creationism cannot be supported by science at all, because creationism fails to adhere to the most basic tenets of scientific theory: for something to be a proper theory, it must be testable, predictive and parsimonious. It must be entirely disprovable. <br /><br />Evolution is testable. From high school students growing fast-growing plants to observations of living species to electron microscopes taking images of DNA replication to gene therapy, evolution has been tested and shown to be correct. Occasionally, some particular detail will be disproven (for example, that because introns are discarded when producing proteins, they have absolutely no effect on the organism), but the basic theory of Traits Can Affect Reproductive Success -> Some Traits Are Genetic -> Thus, Traits Which Improve Reproductive Success Are More Likely To Be More Common In The Next Generation is impervious, in the same way that getting closer to understanding gravity poses no risk to heliocentrism. <br /><br />Meanwhile, intelligent design and creationism are untestable and unpredictive. How can you disprove that an intelligent designer _might_ be behind everything? What evidence could any experiment reveal in either direction? And even if you could absolutely prove it or disprove it, what use would that be? If you had absolute proof that God is The Designer and The Mechanism, what could you do with that knowledge? Would you tell the high school student that you can't tell him whether the taller plants will have taller offspring, because that is God's choice? Or even if you simply want to put forth the idea that a Designer may have set evolution in motion and has not interfered since then: even that is not a proper scientific theory, because it is not parsimonious. The belief in the Designer adds nothing to the theory. It's an untestable, non-functional, extraneous aspect. <br /><br />Evolution is tested every single day through its functional applications. I'm not sure why it has to learn to co-exist with a "theory" that isn't even a proper theory. Your claim is that science belongs to both, and I must disagree. If you want to believe in intelligent design for those questions that evolution hasn't yet or can't answer, then sure, in that sense they can definitely co-exist. There's no contradiction in believing God set the universe into motion AND that evolution is a purely mechanical process. Sure. Fine. <br /><br />But when it comes time for someone to decide whether or not to finish their antibiotic dose ("but I already feel better!"), or how to minimize a mother's chances of passing on the debilitating genetic disease that lurks in her family, or how to best manage the surviving tiger population to maximize the chances of recreating a stable population, or finding new approaches to curing cancer, there is no "what feels right to you" or "seeking your own answer". There is nothing a proponent of intelligent design can offer, not one single word that speaks to the actual nature of reality. Let him instead debate the role of altruism in society, or how a community can serve the less fortunate, or how a family can respond to hardships. These are real, honest, important (much more important, for most people on most days, than the mechanisms of reproduction) questions that belief in a higher power can try to explain, while science only nibbles away at the edges. <br /><br />I apologize if this comment is disproportionate to your argument. The "middle ground" or "value in both ideas" argument is typically the precursor to far more dangerous arguments, such as "let's have science classes teach both!" I may have started by talking to you and ended up shouting at the guy behind you (or less metaphorically, the ten guys whose arguments I read before yours), and for that, I apologize.Squirrelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329289809056681372.post-21966398131179909882010-11-25T15:53:08.791-07:002010-11-25T15:53:08.791-07:00I am curious about your argument that science equa...I am curious about your argument that science equally supports both creationism and evolution. It seems clear to me that creationism cannot be supported by science at all, because creationism fails to adhere to the most basic tenets of scientific theory; for something to be a proper theory, it must be testable, predictive and parsimonious. Concisely, it must be entirely disprovable. <br /><br />Evolution is testable. From high school students growing fast-growing plants to observations of living species to electron microscopes taking images of DNA replication to gene therapy, evolution has been tested and shown to be correct. Occasionally, some particular detail will be disproven (for example, that because introns are discarded when producing proteins, they have absolutely no effect on the organism), but the basic theory of Traits Can Affect Reproductive Success -> Some Traits Are Genetic -> Thus, Traits Which Improve Reproductive Success Are More Likely To Be More Common In The Next Generation is impervious, in the same way that getting closer to understanding gravity poses no risk to heliocentrism. <br /><br />Meanwhile, intelligent design and creationism are untestable and unpredictive. How can you disprove that an intelligent designer _might_ be behind everything? What evidence could any experiment reveal in either direction? And even if you could absolutely prove it or disprove it, what use would that be? If you had absolute proof that God is The Designer and The Mechanism, what could you do with that knowledge? Would you tell the high school student that you can't tell him for sure whether the taller plants will have taller offspring, because that is God's choice? Or even if you simply want to put forth the idea that a Designer may have set evolution in motion and has not interfered since then: even that is not a proper scientific theory, because it is not parsimonious. The belief in the Designer adds nothing to the theory -- it's an untestable, non-functional, extraneous aspect. <br /><br />Evolution has been tested and is tested every single day, through its functional applications. I'm not sure why it has to learn to co-exist peacefully with a "theory" that isn't even a proper theory. Your claim is that science belongs to both, and I must disagree. If you want to believe in intelligent design for those questions that evolution hasn't yet or can't answer, then sure, in that sense they can definitely co-exist. There's no contradiction in believing God set the universe into motion AND that evolution is a purely mechanical process. Sure. Fine. <br /><br />But when it comes time for someone to decide whether or not to finish their antibiotic dose ("but I already feel better!"), or how to minimize a mother's chances of passing on the debilitating genetic disease that lurks in her family, or how to best manage the surviving tiger population to maximize the chances of recreating a stable population, or finding new approaches to curing cancer, there is no "what feels right to you" or "seeking your own answer". There is nothing a proponent of intelligent design can offer, not one single word that speaks to the actual nature of reality. Let him instead debate the role of altruism in society, or how a community can serve the less fortunate, or how a family can respond to hardships. These are real, honest, important (much more important, for most people on most days, than the mechanisms of reproduction) questions that belief in a higher power can try to explain, while science only nibbles away at the edges. <br /><br />I apologize if this comment is disproportionate to your argument. The "middle ground" or "value in both ideas" argument is typically the precursor to far more dangerous arguments, such as "let's have science classes teach both!" I may have started by talking to you and ended up shouting at the guy behind you (or less metaphorically, the ten guys whose arguments I read before yours), and for that, I apologize.Pinnipednoreply@blogger.com