Creationism vs. Evolution

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood Of course there is. Science offers a hypothesis, then tests that hypothesis for consistency with known science. If the hypothesis of ID is that there is intelligent design, how would you begin to test that without knowing who or what was being suggested as the designer?

Like I said, we currently have no means for any testing. Until we have such means, no further definitions are necessary. If you find a black box out in the desert, you can theorize about it's creation without defining how it got there or who built it.

Quote by: Isherwood The real difference between ID and scientific inquiry is that science doesn't claim to know "the answer" and may never find one. ID, on the other hand, starts with the answer and then tries to find evidence that fits. ID is starting at the wrong end of the question, "how did all this come to be?"

There seems to be only two ways that the universe came about, either by some sort of natural cosmic event, or by an overt act of building it. It seems to me that either is a valid starting point.

Quote by: Isherwood Current scientific knowledge says that creation and evolution in the span of 7 days is nonsensical.

No one said anything about evolution.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee Horsepatootie. Creationism, or ID, is as much a theory as any other. It requires no link to religious beliefs, although many people continue to attach religious beliefs to it. It's merely the theory that the universe as we know it was created rather than came about by some unknown cosmic event. The fact that we currently have no means to test the theory doesn't negate the possibilty that it may be valid. There is also no requirement to define what or who created it, or by what process it was created to make it a valid theory. Of course, lacking any methods of testing, it's a pretty short and easily taught theory, but it's a theory nonetheless. We may someday develop appropriate means of testing, who knows?

Horsepatootie indeed.

Do you not understand the definition of the word "theory" as used in science? Or don't you care?

The "Big Bang" is a theory because the hypothesis can be tested against physical evidence. All other ideas about the origin of the universe are hypotheses. (Folks do get sloppy from time to time. "String theory", for example, is not actually a theory, just a very interesting hypothesis.)

Creationism is explictly religion. ID is religion wearing a false mustache. I could care less what your religious views are. I just do not understand why you insist on claiming that your religion is in any way science.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Evolution=cold hard fact while creationsim=blissful ignorance. Which camp do you belong to? I think its good to be a mix of both.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp Horsepatootie indeed. Do you not understand the definition of the word "theory" as used in science? Or don't you care?

Yes, I understand the definition of the word theory. One definition is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Quote by: RickSp The "Big Bang" is a theory because the hypothesis can be tested against physical evidence. All other ideas about the origin of the universe are hypotheses. (Folks do get sloppy from time to time. "String theory", for example, is not actually a theory, just a very interesting hypothesis.)

You want to test the hypothesis that the earth was created?? Ok, look out your window. Woops, there is the earth! How did it get there? The hypothesis has now been tested against physical evidence, hasn't it?

Quote by: RickSp Creationism is explictly religion. ID is religion wearing a false mustache. I could care less what your religious views are. I just do not understand why you insist on claiming that your religion is in any way science.

I haven't made any religious claims at all. If you think I have, please quote me. Why do you continue to insist that ID necessarily includes religion?

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] Evolution=cold hard fact while creationsim=blissful ignorance.

Evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

As far as I can see, that says nothing about the origin of life or matter, only about the development of existing life.

[Jack]

Yes, I understand the definition of the word theory. One definition is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

He said, "as used in science". You've just indicated you haven't a clue.

you can theorize about it's creation without defining how it got there or who built it.

If I'd never seen one before, why would I first assume it was created? I'd probably think it grew there.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Horsepatootie. Creationism, or ID, is as much a theory as any other.

Nope. You don't seem to understand the meaning to the word theory in science. Such ignorance is typical of creationists. In noticed below that you said that "one definition of theory is

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Yes. That is "one" definition of how the word is used. The problem is, that isn't what scientists mean by the word. It is obvious that you are a scientific illiterate. And your "Little Golden Dictionary" isn't adequate for scientific definitions. Like most human endeavors, science has its own specialized vocabulary. If you don't have the integrity and intelligence to learn the vocabulary of science before discussing it, then you make yourself look like a fool. In science, a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Theories accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Let me explain further. A scientist makes an observation that he/she doesn't understood. So more observations are gathered if possible. That is the data - the facts of science. Based on experience, existing scientific theories, and pure speculation, the scientist then proposes an explanation for the observations. That proposed explanation is called an hypothesis. (This is where both creationism and ID creationism stop.) Then, based on the explanation, the scientist makes a prediction of an observation that has not been observed that would be a necessary consequence of the hypothesis. An experiment is then designed that has the capability to falsify the prediction. If the hypothesis passes the test, and if the test is strong enough, then it is called a scientific theory.

Some examples of the above are the germ theory of disease (by which diseases have been demonstrated to be caused by pathogens and not evil spirits), nuclear theory (used to operate nuclear power plants and produce nuclear weapons - I certainly hope that nuclear power plants aren't operated on an "...assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."), heliocentric theory (are you claiming that the earth is the center of the universe?), and the theory of gravity. There is even music theory, the definition of which doesn't conform to your definition.

Really! Have the honesty and integrity to learn the basics of what you claim to oppose. If you don't understand science, how can you oppose it?

Quote by: Zeebadee It requires no link to religious beliefs, although many people continue to attach religious beliefs to it.

Right. Like the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The courts have consistently found that creationism of all kinds, no matter how advocates try to pretend that it is science, is religion. It doesn't "require" a link to religious beliefs because it is religion.

Quote by: Zeebadee It's merely the theory that the universe as we know it was created rather than came about by some unknown cosmic event.

Please tell us about the prediction that was made from the original hypothesis, the experiment that was designed, and how it was tested.

Thanks.

Quote by: Zeebadee The fact that we currently have no means to test the theory doesn't negate the possibilty that it may be valid.

But then, it isn't a scientific theory.

Quote by: Zeebadee There is also no requirement to define what or who created it, or by what process it was created to make it a valid theory.

Yes there is. That's what science does and that's what scientific theories explain. You have just asserted that scientific theories have no obligation to do what scientific theories actually, by definition.

Quote by: Zeebadee Of course, lacking any methods of testing, it's a pretty short and easily taught theory, but it's a theory nonetheless.

Don't be stupid. If you can't test it, it isn't actually a theory. It is a Wild A$$ Guess or an unfounded superstition or an irrational belief in mythology.

Quote by: Zeebadee We may someday develop appropriate means of testing, who knows?

Great. When you do, then get back to us. In the mean time, creationism, creation science, and ID creationism remain religious beliefs without scientific foundation. I'm sorry you need to pretend that your weak faith is verified by science. That is not true of most Christians.

Quote by: Zeebadee Quote by: gallo But the earth couldn't have been created in 7 days. That is religious mythology. Talk about unfounded assertions. You may believe that, but you have no proof of such a claim.

More scientific illiteracy. Science doesn't prove, it explains. Cheese and crackers! How many times do we have to explain that to ignorant fundies? Wouldn't it be good it you learned the basics of what you oppose? How do you know that you oppose it?

Actually, my assertion isn't unfounded. Planetary physicists have a pretty good idea of how and when the earth formed. What is quite certain is that it wasn't 6,000 years ago by magic.

So why don't you present your proof that the earth was created by whatever mythology you believe to be true?

Quote by: Zeebadee Since you don't know how the earth came into existence, you obviously don't know how long that process took.

But then, I'm not a planetary physicist. I'm a biologist. But I've read a lot of books on cosmology and astrophysics. My wife and children have given up on birthdays, father's day, and Christmas and just give me gift certificates at book stores. That way I can pick my own books on cosmology, astronomy, physics, astrophysics, biology, population genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and so on. I read science and I read American history, period. Even my family thinks that I'm a bit strange.

So back to the age of the earth. There are some scientific methods that have been developed over the last 150 years or so that have narrowed down the age of the earth. Currently, the evidence indicates that it is about 4.55 billion years old. Studies of the universe have also resolved the age. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. In the future, those ages may be adjusted as we learn more, but they won't ever fit into the creationist 6,000 year time frame.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Like I said, we currently have no means for any testing.

It's good to see that you are admitting that creationism and ID creationism aren't science. Of course, one of the primary features of science is that it can be tested. That's what scientific theories are - explanations of observed phenomena that have been tested.

Quote by: Zeebadee Until we have such means, no further definitions are necessary.

So you are also stating that creationism and ID creationism cannot be defined, and you duck any questions of definition. Good for you. Most creationists claim that their unfounded belief in creationism is founded in science. At least you are aware that you are talking nothing more than babble.

Quote by: Zeebadee If you find a black box out in the desert, you can theorize about it's creation without defining how it got there or who built it.

Mindless nonsense. Of course by "theorize" you mean make a wild guess based on no evidence, since you don't have any idea of the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. Part of explaining the origin of an unknown object would be to explain how it got there and who built it.

Did you actually think about what you were saying?

Quote by: Zeebadee There seems to be only two ways that the universe came about, either by some sort of natural cosmic event, or by an overt act of building it. It seems to me that either is a valid starting point.

Again the false fundy dichotomy. Always there are only two options. That the universe came about by unknown natural causes rather than by some unknown supernatural cause is more logical. Just because we don't know the (unknown) natural causes isn't justification for the postulation of some magical being. It's Occam's razor.

Quote by: Zeebadee No one said anything about evolution.

You implied it. Also, read the title of this thread. Exactly what is it that you thought you were talking about?

Please pay attention.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, I understand the definition of the word theory. One definition is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Hopefully you have learned that your Little Golden Dictionary is not sufficient when you are seeking scientific meanings. I suspect not, but I can hope.

Quote by: Zeebadee You want to test the hypothesis that the earth was created?? Ok, look out your window. Woops, there is the earth! How did it get there? The hypothesis has now been tested against physical evidence, hasn't it?

No. In fact, that was pretty simple minded. To call it circular would be a compliment.

Quote by: Zeebadee I haven't made any religious claims at all. If you think I have, please quote me. Why do you continue to insist that ID necessarily includes religion?

Duh! Because it is religion. Courts with Christian judges have found that ID creationism is religion. Haven't you been paying attention?

Quote by: Zeebadee Evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." As far as I can see, that says nothing about the origin of life or matter, only about the development of existing life.

Ah! So you are getting the idea. The light begins to dawn on old Marblehead! Good for you! That is exactly correct. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or matter, but only about changes in the allele frequency in populations of organisms over generations. Maybe there is hope. You are exactly correct in stating that evolution pertains only to the development (changes in genetic makeup) of existing life. Good for you!!!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo Let me explain further. A scientist makes an observation that he/she doesn't understood. So more observations are gathered if possible. That is the data - the facts of science. Based on experience, existing scientific theories, and pure speculation, the scientist then proposes an explanation for the observations. That proposed explanation is called an hypothesis. (This is where both creationism and ID creationism stop.) Then, based on the explanation, the scientist makes a prediction of an observation that has not been observed that would be a necessary consequence of the hypothesis. An experiment is then designed that has the capability to falsify the prediction. If the hypothesis passes the test, and if the test is strong enough, then it is called a scientific theory.

Ok, I can accept that. My use of the term "theory" was obviously in error, in what started out (for me, at least) as an informal discussion. I have since checked out the scientific definition of the term and I am open minded enough to admit my mistake. Based on this, ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Quote by: gallo Really! Have the honesty and integrity to learn the basics of what you claim to oppose. If you don't understand science, how can you oppose it?

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. What was it that I claimed to oppose though?

Quote by: gallo It doesn't "require" a link to religious beliefs because it is religion.

Religion is generally defined as a belief in and reverence for some sort of supernatural creator. Isn't it possible that the universe could have been created without any supernatural power having been exercised?

Quote by: gallo I'm sorry you need to pretend that your weak faith is verified by science. That is not true of most Christians.

You're making an unfounded assertion here. You know nothing about either my "weak faith" or whether I am Christian or not.

Quote by: gallo How many times do we have to explain that to ignorant fundies?

Are you implying that I am a "fundie"?? Another unfounded assertion?

Quote by: gallo Wouldn't it be good it you learned the basics of what you oppose? How do you know that you oppose it?

Actually, I'm not quite sure what it is that you think I am opposing.

Quote by: gallo What is quite certain is that it wasn't 6,000 years ago by magic. So why don't you present your proof that the earth was created by whatever mythology you believe to be true?

Magic? Mythology? 6000 years?? Proof?? I don't think I've made any such claims.

BTW, your sarcasm and snideness contributes nothing to the discussion and is uncharacteristic of your apparent fondness for scientific methods.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, I understand the definition of the word theory. One definition is, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Well that proves my point. You ae using a vernacular usage for a word with a very specific meaning in science. So what does your definaition make the theory of gravity? Only a conjecture? Based on limited inofrmation or knowledge? Jump off a tall builiding and I'll bet we will be able to predict the splat when you hit the pavement with a reasonably high degree of accuracy.

If you look up "theory" on dictionary.com you would see the first definaition as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Quote by: Zeebadee I haven't made any religious claims at all. If you think I have, please quote me. Why do you continue to insist that ID necessarily includes religion?

Really? If you are willing to misuse the word "theory" I can only guess what you mean by the word "religion." Creationism is explicitly religious. ID tries to hide its religion but is clearly a scam.

Look up the word "creationism". The definition I see is: "the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis;". And you claim that this is not religious? What about creationism isn't religious?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp Look up the word "creationism". The definition I see is: "the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis;". And you claim that this is not religious? What about creationism isn't religious?

I asked you, "Why do you continue to insist that ID necessarily includes religion?". I didn't ask about creationism (or gravity either).

Look up the words "intelligent design" at your dictionary.com site. The definition is: "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance". And you claim that this is religious? What about ID is religious?

[Rive]

How can you claim that isn't religious? Isn't the main point of many religions that an intelligent being created everything?

oh and on a side note

i left, got deleted, came back months later, and this topic is still being discussed??? what gives?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo The light begins to dawn on old Marblehead! Good for you!

Yes, it does, Dicknose. In spite of your arrogant manner, you have managed to impart some knowledge. Good for you!

Quote by: gallo That is exactly correct. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or matter, but only about changes in the allele frequency in populations of organisms over generations.

Then, (asking respectfully) isn't it illogical to try and compare creationism and evolution, as this thread is titled?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Rive How can you claim that isn't religious? Isn't the main point of many religions that an intelligent being created everything?

Hmmmm, I don't know. Back to dictionary.com. Religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

I could be wrong, as has been shown, but ID doesn't seem to fit the definition.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee I asked you, "Why do you continue to insist that ID necessarily includes religion?". I didn't ask about creationism (or gravity either). Look up the words "intelligent design" at your dictionary.com site. The definition is: "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance". And you claim that this is religious? What about ID is religious?

I was responding specifically to your claim that "I haven't made any religious claims at all" a statement that is completely false as you made claims defending creationism. Regarding ID, it was dreamed up by creationists specifically as a wedge to allow creationism to be taught in schools. I guess you either fell for the con, or perhaps wish to be part of it.

The folks who dreamed up ID as a wedge strategy were even kind enough to put it all down in writing. It was leaked to the press and is avbailble on the net.

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project" Circulates Online

Wedge Document.pdf

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, I can accept that. My use of the term "theory" was obviously in error, in what started out (for me, at least) as an informal discussion. I have since checked out the scientific definition of the term and I am open minded enough to admit my mistake. Based on this, ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.

No. It's not. At least not in the scientific sense. Again you are using the common connotation of a word in a scientific context. An hypothesis is like a theory except that it has not been tested. It is a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles. Of course an hypothesis can be used as the basis for experimentation by which it may be confirmed. The facts are empirical observations of naturalistic phenomena. An hypothesis is capable of being falsified, i.e., shown to be incorrect. That is not the case with ID creationism. It is an assertion based on no observed facts and it cannot be falsified. It is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is religion.

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, I'll keep that in mind. What was it that I claimed to oppose though?

Your discussion so far opposes science.

Quote by: Zeebadee Religion is generally defined as a belief in and reverence for some sort of supernatural creator. Isn't it possible that the universe could have been created without any supernatural power having been exercised?

That's what "creation" means, so no, it isn't possible. It is possible that the universe came into existence by natural causes, but that isn't "creation" in the context of creationism, which is what you are arguing.

Quote by: Zeebadee You're making an unfounded assertion here. You know nothing about either my "weak faith" or whether I am Christian or not.

But it doesn't make sense for you to assume a position of fundamentalist christianity if that is not true. I guess you might be a fundamentalist Muslim.

Quote by: Zeebadee Are you implying that I am a "fundie"?? Another unfounded assertion?

No, it's not. The assertion is based on the fact that you are presenting standard fundy dogma. If you are not, then why argue from that position?

Quote by: Zeebadee Actually, I'm not quite sure what it is that you think I am opposing.

So far, science.

Quote by: Zeebadee Magic? Mythology? 6000 years?? Proof?? I don't think I've made any such claims.

But the religious position that you have taken implies that you are.

Quote by: Zeebadee BTW, your sarcasm and snideness contributes nothing to the discussion and is uncharacteristic of your apparent fondness for scientific methods.

First of all, claims of the scientific nature of creationism and ID creationism are so fundamentally ignorant that they don't deserve respect. Secondly, to challenge scientific ideas without bothering to learn the basics is an indication of immaturity.

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, it does, Dicknose. In spite of your arrogant manner, you have managed to impart some knowledge. Good for you!

North of Boston there is a peninsula into the Atlantic with a town on it, both named Marblehead. "Light dawns on old Marblehead" is a common expression in that part of Massachusetts when someone has finally grasped a difficult concept. People often apply it to themselves. I lived near there some years ago. Sorry if my regionalism offended you.

By the way, calling names, as you have done, is not allowed on this board. It isn't "friendly." You should watch that.

Quote by: Zeebadee Then, (asking respectfully) isn't it illogical to try and compare creationism and evolution, as this thread is titled?

Yes, but it is the creationists and ID creationists who create the discussion by trying to pretend that their religiously motivated ideas are scientific. Thus, one who needs the assurance that their faith is somehow scientific has weak faith. Typically such people are scientifically illiterate and fail to even understand the meaning of terms as used by scientists. Sometimes such ignorance is intentional since the misapplication of definitions is a means to attack science.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Hmmmm, I don't know. Back to dictionary.com. Religion: 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. I could be wrong, as has been shown, but ID doesn't seem to fit the definition.

#1 is exactly the motivation for creationism and ID creationism. Both have been found by courts to be religious ideas. The Supreme Court even defined creationism as religion several years ago.

[Capitalist Pig]

Hey guys, welcome to my thread! In addition to being one of the largest threads here on Volconvo, it's also one of the longest running at just 2 and a quarter years old. She'll be 3 this December. :)

Since this is such a huge topic with page after page of enlightened debate, I would really like to see this tradition live on to the end. Gallo, Zeebadee, this concerns you guys: Keep it clean, no jabs below the belt, feet remain firmly planted on the mat, and tone down the cheap shots, please. If I come back and check on my baby to find more bickering, somebody -- possibly both of you -- will earn a point.

Thank you for your attention, you may proceed with caution.

Please do not respond to this warning within the thread.

(Oh yeah, might I make a suggestion? Quit using English language dictionaries to define scientific terminology. You're only going to confuse yourself in the end.)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo #1 is exactly the motivation for creationism and ID creationism. Both have been found by courts to be religious ideas. The Supreme Court even defined creationism as religion several years ago.

I don't mean to beat this thread much further, but my definition of ID is the same as dictionary.com: "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance". I don't see that this includes any gods or supernatural beings or processes, worship, faith, or anything else that has to do with any religious activities. It has nothing to do with creationism, or evolution. It seems to me that it's those opposed to this definition that continue to insist that it is, or is connected to, religion. The Supreme Court may say it's religion; let's not forget that the Supreme Court at one time also said that blacks weren't, and never could be, citizens of this country.