Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Post Reply New Topic

You may have a controversy, but you do not have a debate when:

Two parties do not agree on their basic premises

When either party declares the other's data invalid

When neither party really listens to the other

When neither side assumes the other is intellectually honest

-------------------

I have seen only one person writing on the topic [topics?] who bothered to treat it as a debate.

His conclusion, as it happens, was not on the side of the Creation Science people.

I would think more of them if one of the CS people had done the same.

Evolution is a fact. It can be observed in real time with bacteria, viruses and fruit files.

Creation is a myth and a belief.

ruveyn

It doesn't really matter. Evolution is fact and has been proven. The fact is, the controversy simply does not exist in academic circles and all scientists in the field agree that evolution is fact. Just about all people who push "creation science" are religious fundamentalists who want to teach religion in the science classroom.

The larger question must be: Is a debate possible when there is such a yawning chasm between the "basic premises" of the two sides?

We ought to at least attempt to identify those premises if we are going to consider this question. The basic operating principle of science is empiricism. That is, the only valid benchmark for whether any theory, be it evolution or anything else, can be considered a proper scientific theory that can present itself as a viable alternative to the prevailing understanding of the world, is that it be based upon actual evidence that we can experience directly with our senses or indirectly through instrumentation that can provide data supporting or contradicting the proposed theory. It is crucial that the theory be falsifiable if it is to fall under the realm of scientific inquiry. Once that standard has been satisfied, it is the theory with the most supporting evidence, without something blatantly in contradiction, and which is most parsimonious in its explanation, that is generally accepted. Such a theory that has met these benchmarks with flying colors for over 150 years can hardly be considered a "dogma" in a sense akin to the religious dogmatism of fundamentalists. If a theory comes along which satisfies the above criteria, and has greater explanatory power than evolution, there is no reason to believe that evolutionary theory as we know it wouldn't be quickly abandoned.

I imagine that you are referring to intelligent design when you say "creation science". The problem, as I established above, is that intelligent design cannot be properly considered a scientific theory at all, not least of all because the proposed "designer" is not, and could never be, falsifiable. In addition, the two primary arguments for intelligent design, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, are not so much evidence for ID as philosophical attacks against evolution. As such, ID is not attempting to meet the standards of empirical inquiry, so much as preclude evolution from being logically possible.

If one is concerned about science encroaching upon a domain that you believe is properly that of non-scientific disciplines such as philosophy or religion, Stephen Jay Gould came up with the interesting idea of "non-overlapping magisteria". This essentially states that science and religion are actually speaking about two entirely different realms of human experience. Whether or not we agree with the concept in a strict sense (some such as Richard Dawkins have argued that the existence of God is an empirical claim itself), it is clear that there are questions that science is not able to answer, most crucially those concerning the meaning of life, a moral code, the organization of society, and what constitutes beauty. Science can inform these questions in some cases, but it can't take the leap to actually providing an answer to them in the final sense. It seems to me, then, the Gould's concept is a reasonable one to adhere to, whether or not one is religious.

In the final analysis, the reality is that evolution has passed the test of science. Therefore, it is not merely blind faith that is causing people to assert the validity of evolution. There is really no debate to be had here. If you wish to assert a role for a creator in guiding evolution, as Francis Collins does, then science has no argument against that. So long as it isn't made as an empirical claim, then it is outside the realm of science. As far as metaphysics is concerned, science is unable to discern whether or not this universe was made by a supernatural power.

Some people would prefer to only believe things that pass the test of empiricism. Other people do not believe this is necessary, and think that there are other means to ascertain what exists. This is a matter that I imagine will never be resolved. But you can't fault science for following its procedures and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

I fancy myself a theistic evolutionist, but I don't count myself with the intelligent design camp, because the simple fact of the matter is, you can't prove God. And that is the wrench thrown into the teaching of so called creationist science in schools as far as I'm concerned.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

They are not debates, they are attacks out of dislike of the other and defense out of the love and adherence to your faith. The faithful to either the alters of theism or (a)theism may feel illuminated even though, let's be honest... we're all reasoning in the dark on some very large improvable assumptions.

I just heard on NPR this morning that the new head of the Texas State Board of Education (the people who determine what appears in the textbooks for public schools) is a high school biology teacher who denies evolution.

Which means they want to destroy science eventually. They would love to have the technology that science brings without the intellectual honesty and rigor that science requires. One cannot have it both ways.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Jul 2011, 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

evolution != atheism.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution.

There's no evidence for creation.

"Creation science" is not even a scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable. It is not even wrong. It makes no predictions that can be tested, it does not allow better understanding of things. It will not help other branches of knowledge. It is a useless excuse made up by theists that lack faith of their own god. If those wanting to push creationism in schools actually had faith, they wouldn't be bothered by the idea that science teaches about evolution and the big bang theory and that the earth is not flat and is far older than 6000 years.

But they have so little faith in their, that they are horrified of the idea of their kids finding out that there is no evidence for their God. So afraid that they would rather destroy science by pushing faux theories into the curriculum. Then they will not feel threatened, they know their faith is so weak that they will snap at the smallest test and would rather destroy the world before having to go through that test.

Inevitably it becomes nothing except for a vitriolic game of whack-a-mole. People don't listen to each other and presume that any disagreement is due to a lack of intelligence or "hijacking" if the other party is demonstrably intelligent.

It is possible that Creationists and Evolutionists (is that a word? I don't think so) are both right.
Or that they are both partially right.

New creationists (the ones whose argument involves "evolution is wrong ergo god created everything") are certainly wrong.

* Misuse of probability theory showing that they have calculators but poor understanding of both probability and evolution.
* Poor attempts to show complexity in organic beings and try to pull a god of the gaps as proof that Creationism happened.

And most evolutionists present strawman arguments instead of bothering to listen to actual arguments. Sometimes though, they'll go and find shoddy arguments presented by people like Kent Hovind which work just as well as strawman arguments, and after refuting a few token crappy arguments go on their merry way feeling good about themselves because they're able to detect the shoddiest of argumentation and make fun of it.



Yes, partially. A lot of the creationists with PhDs in scientific fields actually accept the action of natural selection upon the preexisting genetics of a population. Some evolutionists dispute the entire dinosaurs turning into birds subsection of evolutionary interpretation of data.

QFT.

Robert T. Bakker is a prominant paleontologist, and a Ecumenical Christian minister. He doesn't believe that there is a conflict between religion and science, and I agree with him. There really isn't one, and to me it when both sides (creationists and evolutionists) like to gush about their side is the most right and how everyone else is stupid, then to me it's nothing more then a display of arrogance rather then a display of reasoning.

"Robert T. Bakker is a prominant paleontologist, and a Ecumenical Christian minister. He doesn't believe that there is a conflict between religion and science, and I agree with him. There really isn't one..."

I think this is exactly right. There isn't really a conflict at all. Science simply doesn't make any judgement at all about people's religious faith. The problem is that some folks crave the validation of science for their beliefs. This simply isn't going to happen. But if you can accept that this will never be the case, there is no reason why somebody couldn't fully accept the premises and conclusions of scientific inquiry, while at the same time unapologetically espouse their chosen faith.

Definately. I think the major problem is that science is more suited to how we got here rather then why, which is what religion does. When one side attempts to 'disprove' the other side on a point that it wasn't designed to handle, then it makes both sides look like fools.