Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 02:39 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No, evolution is all we have. It is the dominant theory of biology. That could change -- science is always open; but it's hard to see how (thus spake Newton). However, within evolutionary theory, there are many differences, widely debated -- and, more importantly, put to the test. Scientific theories generate hypotheses that can be tested against evidence, which may confirm them, debunk them, or cause them to be altered. Scientific theories lead to new questions, show new ways to explore nature, accept new challenges.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, and has not been since the triumph of Darwinism. Young-earth creationism had already been considerably challenged by geological evidence of a much-older earth, before Darwin (and Wallace) came along with a theory that explained how life changed over that long history of earth. Mendel supplied the beginnings of the genetic theory that was later incorporated into a neo-Darwinian theory. Physics supplied knowledge of radioactivity, which both explained where the energy came from in an exceedingly-old universe and supplied methods of testing and dating so useful to evolutionary theory. All of this knocked Creationism firmly out of science. The Creationism we see today is a 20th Century political movement that drew on Biblical literalism and tried to dress it up in scientific clothes. They never fit.

A recent twist has been Intelligent Design (which I discussed above). It claims to not be Creationism, to not be religious at all. But it works just like the older versions of Creationism. It seeks not to generate new hypotheses that can be tested, to ask new questions that can offer innovative paths for scientific knowledge. Rather it tries to debunk evolution, and much other science, and claims that it will win by default if it can debunk a scientific theory. This is a version of an argument from ignorance. Even if a scientific theory (even if evolution) were incorrect, this does not thereby enshrine any other approach. It would merely mean that a new theory would have to be created that explained more than the old one.

So, no, in science there is no current alternative to evolution -- although within evolution there are many lively debates.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:39 pm	#159 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,) are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, evolution is all we have. It is the dominant theory of biology. That could change -- science is always open; but it's hard to see how (thus spake Newton). However, within evolutionary theory, there are many differences, widely debated -- and, more importantly, put to the test. Scientific theories generate hypotheses that can be tested against evidence, which may confirm them, debunk them, or cause them to be altered. Scientific theories lead to new questions, show new ways to explore nature, accept new challenges. Creationism is not a scientific theory, and has not been since the triumph of Darwinism. Young-earth creationism had already been considerably challenged by geological evidence of a much-older earth, before Darwin (and Wallace) came along with a theory that explained how life changed over that long history of earth. Mendel supplied the beginnings of the genetic theory that was later incorporated into a neo-Darwinian theory. Physics supplied knowledge of radioactivity, which both explained where the energy came from in an exceedingly-old universe and supplied methods of testing and dating so useful to evolutionary theory. All of this knocked Creationism firmly out of science. The Creationism we see today is a 20th Century political movement that drew on Biblical literalism and tried to dress it up in scientific clothes. They never fit. A recent twist has been Intelligent Design (which I discussed above). It claims to not be Creationism, to not be religious at all. But it works just like the older versions of Creationism. It seeks not to generate new hypotheses that can be tested, to ask new questions that can offer innovative paths for scientific knowledge. Rather it tries to debunk evolution, and much other science, and claims that it will win by default if it can debunk a scientific theory. This is a version of an argument from ignorance. Even if a scientific theory (even if evolution) were incorrect, this does not thereby enshrine any other approach. It would merely mean that a new theory would have to be created that explained more than the old one. So, no, in science there is no current alternative to evolution -- although within evolution there are many lively debates.