I've shortened your comments for character count, but left context cues.
-Some scientists come to belief in evolution based on facts…
Here’s the first problem. You appear to be asserting that some scientists believe in evolution based on facts, while others come to believe in creation presumably on facts. A scientist who holds the theory of evolution to be true given the evidence presented is conducting science. A scientist who believes in creationism based off of the evidence is no longer conducting science - they are practicing religion. Science does generate inductive questions, but those questions are simply lines of inquiry until evidentiary, deductive, empirical research can be conducted. In Creationism, both the initial arguments and the inductive conclusions rely on non-scientific concepts.
-I agree with you that technically creationism is not scientific. You are right that we can not falsify there being a Creator God.
Thank you.
-By that same measuring stick, however, evolution is not technically scientific…
Wrong. Studies conducted in the past five years indicate that abiogenesis is a very real possibility, and as we learn more about primordial conditions and variables we may be able to replicate the process in laboratory conditions. The article by Emeline et al. “Abiogenesis and photostimulated heterogeneous reactions in the interstellar medium and on primitive earth Relevance to the genesis of life” in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology is reports the results of one series of experiments.
That life developed on earth is a given, but that does not mean that Evolution is not falsifiable. It remains falsifiable because “Evolution” is actually a collection of theories about the origin and development of life - there is no single, universally held version. Each one of those theories are tested and verified or falsified by the new discoveries we make, and the very theory of Evolution keeps… evolving given the new data. This makes it appear unfalsifiable, but only because individuals conceptualize Evolution as a single theory. The currently held ideas about Evolution can be dead wrong (falsifiable) without meaning that the concept is flawed - just our understanding of its specifics.
Creationism, on the other hand, is reliant on a single assertion: that God created everything as is. That assertion cannot be separated from the concept because they are one and the same.
-There is no “clear evidence” for evolution on more than the micro/lateral/subspecies level…
Wrong again. Dr. Douglas Theobald alone has published no fewer than 29 specific evidentiary cases of macro-evolution. These, along with a host of others, have moved organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences, the National Academy of Science, and the National Center for Science Education to accept evolution as scientific fact.
-Will that change? Who knows. Only more study will determine that. That should excite people, not scare them.
I agree that new discoveries should excite people, and I would welcome unbiased, scientific evidence that supported intelligent design. Will the Creationists do the same if more evidence supporting evolution is discovered?
-I prefer to think that both are based on observed facts and logical conclusions and consider them both scientific theories…
-All facts should be presented in science classes…
Evolution is, as I have stated above, precisely and unquestionably scientific. It is based on science and subject to scientific rigor. Creationism uses the limits of human knowledge and understanding to assert the presence of a higher power, and is thereby based on faith and faith alone.
-As for the founding fathers…
My history is neither revisionist nor inaccurate. It represents the best historical and political scholarship on the position of the Founding Fathers as reported, ironically enough, in the American Political Science Review. See Lynford A. Lardner’s “How Far Does the Constitution Separate Church and State?” and William W. Van Alstyne’s “Constitutional Separation of Church and State: The Quest for a Coherent Position” for confirmation.
-Some scientists come to belief in evolution based on facts…
Here’s the first problem. You appear to be asserting that some scientists believe in evolution based on facts, while others come to believe in creation presumably on facts. A scientist who holds the theory of evolution to be true given the evidence presented is conducting science. A scientist who believes in creationism based off of the evidence is no longer conducting science - they are practicing religion. Science does generate inductive questions, but those questions are simply lines of inquiry until evidentiary, deductive, empirical research can be conducted. In Creationism, both the initial arguments and the inductive conclusions rely on non-scientific concepts.
-I agree with you that technically creationism is not scientific. You are right that we can not falsify there being a Creator God.
Thank you.
-By that same measuring stick, however, evolution is not technically scientific…
Wrong. Studies conducted in the past five years indicate that abiogenesis is a very real possibility, and as we learn more about primordial conditions and variables we may be able to replicate the process in laboratory conditions. The article by Emeline et al. “Abiogenesis and photostimulated heterogeneous reactions in the interstellar medium and on primitive earth Relevance to the genesis of life” in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology is reports the results of one series of experiments.
That life developed on earth is a given, but that does not mean that Evolution is not falsifiable. It remains falsifiable because “Evolution” is actually a collection of theories about the origin and development of life - there is no single, universally held version. Each one of those theories are tested and verified or falsified by the new discoveries we make, and the very theory of Evolution keeps… evolving given the new data. This makes it appear unfalsifiable, but only because individuals conceptualize Evolution as a single theory. The currently held ideas about Evolution can be dead wrong (falsifiable) without meaning that the concept is flawed - just our understanding of its specifics.
Creationism, on the other hand, is reliant on a single assertion: that God created everything as is. That assertion cannot be separated from the concept because they are one and the same.
-There is no “clear evidence” for evolution on more than the micro/lateral/subspecies level…
Wrong again. Dr. Douglas Theobald alone has published no fewer than 29 specific evidentiary cases of macro-evolution. These, along with a host of others, have moved organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences, the National Academy of Science, and the National Center for Science Education to accept evolution as scientific fact.
-Will that change? Who knows. Only more study will determine that. That should excite people, not scare them.
I agree that new discoveries should excite people, and I would welcome unbiased, scientific evidence that supported intelligent design. Will the Creationists do the same if more evidence supporting evolution is discovered?
-I prefer to think that both are based on observed facts and logical conclusions and consider them both scientific theories…
-All facts should be presented in science classes…
Evolution is, as I have stated above, precisely and unquestionably scientific. It is based on science and subject to scientific rigor. Creationism uses the limits of human knowledge and understanding to assert the presence of a higher power, and is thereby based on faith and faith alone.
-As for the founding fathers…
My history is neither revisionist nor inaccurate. It represents the best historical and political scholarship on the position of the Founding Fathers as reported, ironically enough, in the American Political Science Review. See Lynford A. Lardner’s “How Far Does the Constitution Separate Church and State?” and William W. Van Alstyne’s “Constitutional Separation of Church and State: The Quest for a Coherent Position” for confirmation.
Reply
Leave a comment