Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Since scientists are curious by nature and science by definition is limited in what it can say about the universe it is curious to me why scientists would limit their understanding.

Oh, I’m sure that most don’t. It’s just that we need to draw a distinction between the science and the scientist. I, for example, fully recognize the possible limits of scientific inquiry, but that can’t possibly change the scientific way I go about doing research. It is impossible to gain any empirical understanding of supernatural matters, so the two have different jurisdictions.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

. It is impossible to gain any empirical understanding of supernatural matters, so the two have different jurisdictions.

I understand. I think this is where personal philosophy can somewhat taint the interpretation of the raw data. In addition the data many times stands on it own to make proclamations that in itself are self limited.

Is there a way where the same raw data be explained under both jurisdictions? To me it seems, since faith and reason cannot be opposed, then everything thing of the universe should be able to be explained from both perspectives.

The intersection would be the most accurate truth would it not?

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Not proven, but the underlying ideas and principles can be tested to lend a degree of credibility to the theory. Just because one non-scientist in this article (or many) don’t understand the science or principles does not make them any less valid.

The degree of credibility is what its all about isn’t it? It is a matter of degrees. That measurement of credibility is made by individuals, based hugely on personal phylosophy. If a person limits himself to the realm of what can be scientifically known, he may conclude there is a high degree of credibility to evolution. If one places more importance on philosophy and theology, he may decide there is low credibility.

In reality all an evolutionists can justifiably assert is that considering exclusively the scientific evidence, evolution is the most probable answer. They may argue the evidence is so overwhelming that it is not reasonable to believe otherwise. But it comes down to a degree of probability.

Yet evolutionists vehemently dispute the probability arguments of creationists. I’ve heard statistical figures about the probability of the organization of the cells in a human body being organized as they are, and in such a way that the body works. Boy howdy do we hear from evolutionists objecting to that line of reasoning.

…but it does in fact come down to degree of credibility doesn’t it?

If that is the basis of argument for calling evolution a fact, prepare yourselves for statisitical probability arguments from creationists

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

I, for example, fully recognize the possible limits of scientific inquiry, but that can’t possibly change the scientific way I go about doing research. It is impossible to gain any empirical understanding of supernatural matters, so the two have different jurisdictions.

Hmmm. Julie Thomas comes to mind yet again.

So if someone could show you how Intelligent Design is a theory usefull for scientific advancements, furthering our understanding of the natural world, it would thereby become a tool that would be used by these impartial scientists?

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

This is 100% wrong. Natural explanations can certainly be falsified and, more often, modified as we conduct more sensitive observations. Supernatural explanations, necessarily, are invoked to fill in the “gaps” in natural explanations.

This is interesting. Can evolution be falsified? I realize one could argue that the potential exists for it someday enough evidence will surface to create more doubt about it, but for the foreseeable future how could it possibly be falsified?

Supernatural explanations are no less falsifiable. At best someone can come up with an explanation that also, or perhaps better explains the supernatural claim. Same goes for the theory of evolution best I can tell. At best someone could come up with an explanation that also, or perhaps better explains the evolutionists claim. What’s the difference?

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

Can evolution be falsified?

Darwin said:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

(Both from OtOoS Ch 6)

Evolution is, and always has been falsifiable. ISTM that Dr Behe had the first quote in mind when he developed his concept of irreducible complexity.

If you want to learn more about evolution then Darwin repays reading and re-reading.

rossum

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

This is interesting. Can evolution be falsified? I realize one could argue that the potential exists for it someday enough evidence will surface to create more doubt about it, but for the foreseeable future how could it possibly be falsified?

simple, show a species that had a physical structure that was unlike those in related species

like a lobster with a spine or a land vertebrate with a third pair of limbs
Chris W:

Supernatural explanations are no less falsifiable.

untrue, they are inherently non-falsifiable since by definition they have no natural, predictable mechanism

If little Johnnie’s boils went away event time he jumped down, turned around, and spit that would be predictable and quantifible

Miraculous events are …well …miraculous
it is their rarity and their exception to the rule that makes them notable.

If cause an effect in miraculous events was so obvious the church wouldn’t need to examine canonization candidates so thoroughly.
Chris W:

At best someone can come up with an explanation that also, or perhaps better explains the supernatural claim. Same goes for the theory of evolution best I can tell. At best someone could come up with an explanation that also, or perhaps better explains the evolutionists claim. What’s the difference?

well major.
Evolution is one of those things that is so well defined and has such a large body of data associated with it that any modifications to the theory are basically adjustments within a fixed framework. So while people may argue about gradual evolution verses fits and starts or genetic drift verses mutations, etc no one is going to say evolution doesn’t occur.

Oh the other hand, If you posit that supernatural things occur are because you offered up goat entrails to Jupiter and then I suggest it is because Jesus loves you that is a major shift in the explanation

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

Darwin said:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

(Both from OtOoS Ch 6)

Evolution is, and always has been falsifiable. ISTM that Dr Behe had the first quote in mind when he developed his concept of irreducible complexity.

I don’t see how you explanation shows how it is falsifiable, rossum. How would someone prove (BTW Science can’t do that I’ve been told ) that a complex organ “could not possibly have been formed” by evolution? That is no more “provable” than it would be to “prove” that God could not possibly have formed the very same organ.

The second method you mention is equally impossible.

So how again does this mean evolution is falsifiable?

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

simple, show a species that had a physical structure that was unlike those in related species

If the physical structure was unlike those in a related species? If they were unlike, they wouldn’t be a related species would they?

steveandersen:

untrue, they are inherently non-falsifiable since by definition they have no natural, predictable mechanism

Tell that to Julie Thomas

steveandersen:

If little Johnnie’s boils went away event time he jumped down, turned around, and spit that would be predictable and quantifible

Miraculous events are …well …miraculous

Who said anything about miracles? I thought we were talking about intelligent design. I guess I should’ve clarified “supernatural” huh? Sorry.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

Wanerious:

If you concede that aspects of evolution cannot be proven then how can you argue when I say that aspects of evolution cannot falsified?

“Darwin’s method is not generally experimantal, for singular and complex events are not so explained by historical science” - these are the words of Steven J Gould…no creationist. He is joined by Karl Popper, Colin Patterson, Paul Ehrlich, Charles Birch…evolutionists all.

You can point to supporting evidence for the accidental generation of life and the random evolution of species until doomsday but it can never be repeated and tested. Therefore it can never be proven or falsified.

This is why evolutionists should be more tolerant of other beliefs or theories because the notion that life began by accident or that man evolved is no more than a belief or theory as well. Yet to hear the reactions of evolutionists regarding creation you would think scientists had the evolution of man on video.

And how can there be ways to imagine creation that are primitive and foolish? Can’t God create life in any way he chooses? You see we start down the road that Darwin laid, which was to develop an alternative to “the theory of independent acts of creation”, and soon enough the virgin birth, the healing of the blind and the resurrection are all primitive and foolish as well. This is why I care about what laypeople think.

If the evololutionists are willing to acknowledge that the notion that life began by accident and that man evolved are beliefs based on supporting evidence then I have nothing to debate. But when evolutionists say “there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural” (Sir Julian Huxley) and that the accidental generation of life and the random development of species are settled fact then evolutionists must expect creationists to resist.

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

If the physical structure was unlike those in a related species? If they were unlike, they wouldn’t be a related species would they?

What?
That’s the whole point. Common decent is demonstrated by the fact that related species share traits. What would falsify that is showing something that is out of place. For instance, all land vertebrates have (at some stage in their development) 4 limbs, indicating common decent. If you could show me a population of horses that had 6 legs; something that was clearly a horse and had all the other horsy traits such as cell structure, skull formation, dentation…etc but couldn’t be a horse because it had 6 limbs and all horses are descendants of lobed fish and can only have 4 limbs. Then you would have falsified the theory.
Chris W:

Tell that to Julie Thomas

Sure. Invite her over for drinks and I’ll tell it to her face
Chris W:

Who said anything about miracles? I thought we were talking about intelligent design. I guess I should’ve clarified “supernatural” huh? Sorry.

Yes. What is the difference?

And if ID isn’t suggesting miraculous occurrences what is it suggesting? A diabolic occurrence?

If all it is saying is “something else happened” without offering an explanation then its usefulness is limited and it most definitely shouldn’t be in a science class.

If it is saying that “God did it” then it should be honest and say so and it still shouldn’t be in a science class…especially in a public school.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

What?
That’s the whole point. Common decent is demonstrated by the fact that related species share traits. What would falsify that is showing something that is out of place. For instance, all land vertebrates have (at some stage in their development) 4 limbs, indicating common decent. If you could show me a population of horses that had 6 legs; something that was clearly a horse and had all the other horsy traits such as cell structure, skull formation, dentation…etc but couldn’t be a horse because it had 6 limbs and all horses are descendants of lobed fish and can only have 4 limbs. Then you would have falsified the theory.

Still not sure I udnerstand. Do you mean something like a beaver with the bill of a duck? It seems to me it would merely be classified as another species, and then the theory woudl be adjusted slightly to allow for such a creature to have evolved. It still would disprove it, so I still fail to see how it is falsifiable.

 

[wanerious]

Sugar Ray:

Wanerious:

If you concede that aspects of evolution cannot be proven then how can you argue when I say that aspects of evolution cannot falsified?

I don’t understand. These are two different things. No theory in science may ever be proven true, but it is easy to prove it false with one contrary observation.

“Darwin’s method is not generally experimantal, for singular and complex events are not so explained by historical science” - these are the words of Steven J Gould…no creationist. He is joined by Karl Popper, Colin Patterson, Paul Ehrlich, Charles Birch…evolutionists all.

…and he’s right. That was the way Darwin worked. But we’ve come a long way in the last 150 years. While he was ignorant of the mechanism of change (genetics), we now have ample opportunity to experiment with the underlying mechanism.

This is why evolutionists should be more tolerant of other beliefs or theories because the notion that life began by accident or that man evolved is no more than a belief or theory as well.

Of course, a “theory” in science is much stronger language than you suppose. A theory has much corroborating evidence in its favor, and no opposing evidence contradicting it. To imagine that it is a mere “belief” is just wrong. Scientists have no responsibility to be tolerant of other theories unless they are well-supported by observational evidence. New theories are always attacked mercilessly to see if they hold up under critical examination.

And how can there be ways to imagine creation that are primitive and foolish? Can’t God create life in any way he chooses?

Sure, but life was created, in one specific way. We’re trying to figure out what that was. There are many different creation myths and legends, and they can’t all be historically and scientifically true. Perhaps none of them are. The only way for scientists to proceed is to imagine that life arose through physical means and see how far we get. Perhaps in several million years we’ll throw up our hands and admit that we’ll never figure it out, but now we’re just getting started.

You see we start down the road that Darwin laid, which was to develop an alternative to “the theory of independent acts of creation”, and soon enough the virgin birth, the healing of the blind and the resurrection are all primitive and foolish as well. This is why I care about what laypeople think.

And if others think that the above is primitive and foolish, what of it? How does this affect your personal salvation or relationship with God? If these are necessary for your personal faith, then your beliefs are not so flimsy.

If the evololutionists are willing to acknowledge that the notion that life began by accident and that man evolved are beliefs based on supporting evidence then I have nothing to debate.

Cool. But I’d amend this to say that, yes, man’s body evolved, and life could have begun according to physical laws (not by “accident”). Then we’re all square.

But when evolutionists say “there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural” (Sir Julian Huxley) and that the accidental generation of life and the random development of species are settled fact then evolutionists must expect creationists to resist.

So resist those persons, not the theory itself. It is true that increasing knowledge about the physical world leaves less and less room for the supernatural, but it still may be there in a meta-sense.

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

…Still not sure I udnerstand. Do you mean something like a beaver with the bill of a duck? It seems to me it would merely be classified as another species, and then the theory woudl be adjusted slightly to allow for such a creature to have evolved.

no. The essence of the theory is the fact of common decent. The observation that once a trait evolves all subsequent species in that line will have that trait.

One of the more silly things you something hear creationist say is something like “evolution says that a frog can become a bird” they’re wrong of course, frog and birds diverged eons ago and there already are birds… that train has left the station. A frog could conceivably evolve features similar to birds (just as whales have some features superficially similar to fish) but close examination would always reveal its froggy past

As you said, there are many features which could be explained as particular adaptations so it’s not just a matter of a “beaver with a duck bill” it would be something deeply fundamental to the species that would violate common decent such as the basic body plan as I mentioned above

No adjustment of the theory could handle a species of 6 legged beavers. It is falsifiable.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

As you said, there are many features which could be explained as particular adaptations so it’s not just a matter of a “beaver with a duck bill” it would be something deeply fundamental to the species that would violate common decent such as the basic body plan as I mentioned above

No adjustment of the theory could handle a species of 6 legged beavers. It is falsifiable.

Bear with me, I am not so much arguing against you as I am trying to understand something I’ve not considered before (though I am now realizing we have strayed quite a ways from the topic of the thread).

Why would a 6 legged beaver void the theory of evolution?

There are other 6 legged creatures with whom it could have shared a common ancestor. We could also say with such a trait it ceases to be a beaver altogether and there does not need to show a lineage of decent…because perhaps it’s ancestors were not captured in the very fragmented fossil record. It has enough similarities to various other creatures, surely sharing even DNA similarities. It’s ancestor’s departure from the chain of evolution of beavers would merely be something to speculate about. It may have evolved independently of any beaverlike creature. The common ancestor could be an organism that resembles neither a beaver nor this new found creature. It simply would be a unique creature unknown to man previously, similar to other creatures but disticntly different enough to warrant the title of a new species of critter.

In fact, science would necessarily have to assert that it too evolved wouldn’t it? For what other alternative is there, since science cannot consider creation? Can I be expected to believe that science would simply throw up there hands and say “you know what? This voids evolution and we simply don’t have a clue what to replace evolution with at this point”? C’mon, man, there is no other theory out there besides evolution and creation.

In reality scientists would say “we don’t yet understand all the intricicies of the evolved world, but there is such a hugh preponderance of evidence verifying the theory of evolution, that we are quite reasonable to assert that while we currently cannot account for this discovery with any certainty, it still stands to reason it did in fact evolve”.

…in fact, that is the very answer I received when questioning why humans have an intellect, conscience. and free will uniquely different than every other species known to man. Sure, some will argue there are similarities in this regard seen in other creatures, but that is precisely the same argument that would be made when considering a 6 legged beaver.

Try again. I still cannot see how evolution could ever be falsified.

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

The essence of the theory is the fact of common decent. The observation that once a trait evolves all subsequent species in that line will have that trait.

So are there a finite number of lines? I think not. The proposed lines are the result of observations, so new observations would easily warrant the assertion of new lines previously “overlooked”.

steveandersen:

One of the more silly things you something hear creationist say is something like “evolution says that a frog can become a bird” they’re wrong of course, frog and birds diverged eons ago and there already are birds… that train has left the station. A frog could conceivably evolve features similar to birds (just as whales have some features superficially similar to fish) but close examination would always reveal its froggy past

Not sure why you posted this, but I can only assume you suspect I too might make such a silly mistake. Not so. I have learned enough to avoid such arguments.

 

[Chris_W]

Chris W:

I still cannot see how evolution could ever be falsified.

Clarification: I only mean “with exclusively scientific information”.

 

[rossum]

steveandersen:

A frog could conceivably evolve features similar to birds (just as whales have some features superficially similar to fish) but close examination would always reveal its froggy past

They have already made a start: see flying frogs. Webbed feet that are useful for swimming can be adapted for gliding.

rossum

 

[steveandersen]

Chris W:

…Why would a 6 legged beaver void the theory of evolution?

It would violate the very heart of the theory. All beavers are rodents. Not all rodents are beavers but some are. The theory requires that all beavers have all the characteristics that all rodents do plus some extras that make them beavers.

All rodents are mammals. Not all mammals are rodents but some are. The theory requires that all rodents have all the characteristics of mammals plus some extra that make them rodents

All mammals are tetrapods (four limbed). Not all tetrapods are mammals but some are. The theory requires that all mammals have all the characteristics of tetrapods plus some extra that make them mammals.

So if you could produce a beaver that had something that wasn’t common to rodents, mammals and tetrapods such as that 3rd pair of limbs the theory would be down the drain.

When I say a 6 legged beaver I mean an animal that is like a beaver in every other way and not just one that merely resembles a beaver like the way a whale resembles a fish or an eel a snake.
Chris W:

… It simply would be a unique creature unknown to man previously, similar to other creatures but disticntly different enough to warrant the title of a new species of critter.

a creature without precursors? If you can’t see how that is a fundamental violoation of the theory then I’m probably not explaining it to you correctly. (Or you’re being obtuse)
Chris W:

In fact, science would necessarily have to assert that it too evolved wouldn’t it?

since that is the prevailing model it would naturally try to fit it in at first.
Chris W:

… Can I be expected to believe that science would simply throw up there hands and say “you know what? This voids evolution and we simply don’t have a clue what to replace evolution with at this point”?

with a hole that big? Certainly

You don’t hear any scientists talking about aether any more do you?
or the music of the spheres?
Lamark’s theories were thrown out after Darwin

no one does reasearch into the four elements any more

no one describes heat as a substance any more either.

science has a history of thowing out prevailing theories (even if it takes a generation or two)
Chris W:

…In reality scientists would say “we don’t yet understand all the intricicies of the evolved world, but there is such a hugh preponderance of evidence verifying the theory of evolution, that we are quite reasonable to assert that while we currently cannot account for this discovery with any certainty, it still stands to reason it did in fact evolve”.

you just asked what would falsify the current theory you didn’t ask what would make scientists stop trying to find a theory that works and/or give up and become creationists.

If you want to make scientists not be scientists I don’t think that anything sort of a big hand coming down form the sky and slapping their wrists would work…and even that might not do it.

.
Chris W:

…in fact, that is the very answer I received when questioning why humans have an intellect, conscience. and free will uniquely different than every other species known to man. Sure, some will argue there are similarities in this regard seen in other creatures, but that is precisely the same argument that would be made when considering a 6 legged beaver.

intellect and self awareness have precursors in related species
Chris W:

Try again. I still cannot see how evolution could ever be falsified.

sigh
that’s the best I can do

humorous side thought: I have this picture in my mind of an evil televangelist trying to breed 6 legged beavers in a hidden underground laboratory… “This will get that darn evolution out of our schools!” he’d shout. Sort of like a South Park episode

 

[Chris_W]

steveandersen:

sigh
that’s the best I can do :

…and you’ve done well (at least in my mind) You’ve answerd my question pretty well now I think. Thanks for the time.

steveandersen:

humorous side thought: I have this picture in my mind of an evil televangelist trying to breed 6 legged beavers in a hidden underground laboratory… “This will get that darn evolution out of our schools!” he’d shout. Sort of like a South Park episode

…yes, I find that thought humerous too. hmmm. Not a bad idea

Have a nice weekend steve.