Scientists: Creationist President Would Doom U.S.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

And then in 1859 we got ourselves a better answer

No, we got ourselves a better theory.

Clearly, the "answer" is yet to be obtained. If science is closed minded enough to think they have the end all answer then they are just as guilty as the creationist who thought they did.

[Whaleboy]

Were you wrongly assuming that my statement was in support of creationism?

No.

My statement was in relation to closed mindedness.

My point about intellectual honesty and the difference between believing and being convinced was in response to your statement.

Please explain to me how evolution has demonstrated an ability of one species to evolve into another species. Surely you can cite some evidence if it has "convinced" you. Or was the theory just so pretty that you could not resist?

See the example I linked to earlier.

[Whaleboy]

No, we got ourselves a better theory.

Clearly, the "answer" is yet to be obtained. If science is closed minded enough to think they have the end all answer then they are just as guilty as the creationist who thought they did.

I don't think any reputable scientist I've ever been exposed to would claim to have all the answers. They might claim to have a better answer. For example, 4 is a better answer to the question "2+2" than 3.

That's a slightly unfair example because by definition it's irrefutable, but I used it deliberately to show the difference between this deductive reasoning and scientific method which is inherently induced. The difference therefore is in the quality of the inductions. It should be reasonably obvious that some theories are stronger in evidence and logic than others.

For example, the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is stronger than the theory which says the Sun goes round the Earth. The theory that my pen will hit the desk when I drop it is stronger than that which states that it will hit the ceiling.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I'm sure there are, but their argument begs the question of both what being / force could create the starting conditions intentionally and how that being came about.

Yes. But that is really just the broader question of why they believe in a creator god in the first place. A question which really ought not to have been affected by Darwin's discoveries. How a creator created the world is irrelevant to this question.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To foresee the events, surely the cause would have to be more complex than the outcome no?

When discussing "supernatural" these assumptions do not apply.

[Whaleboy]

Yes. But that is really just the broader question of why they believe in a creator god in the first place. A question which really ought not to have been affected by Darwin's discoveries. How a creator created the world is irrelevant to this question.

I disagree since the theory of evolution posits an explanation of the existence of life that does not require creator god - it is a simpler explanation fitting all the evidence.

When discussing "supernatural" these assumptions do not apply.

But why discuss the supernatural unless you want to invoke it as an explanation for a natural phenomena? What if there is a stronger theory that explains the same things without recourse to the supernatural which requires still further explanation.

Now my argument falls down if you want to posit a God which is not a creator God, but I don't think most Christians/Jews/Muslims would want to believe in such a thing.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
From what I understand, evolution is a sort of linchpin for understanding a lot of things in the biological world. For instance, if you don't believe that lifeforms change naturally over time, how much of an asset would one be in the search for the cure to, say, the bird flu, which is a clearly changing (i.e. evolving) organism that could very well one day become quite comfy in the human respiratory tract.

Let me clearify, the mechanics of evolution should be taught, but never should it be taught that evolution is the reason for the many species that cover the earth. Evolution can easily fit in into creationist beleifs. Such as God could be causing evolution, or (for those who believe God plays a less active in the world today) God created evolution as a method for species to adapt to new environments. I don't think that will hold back medical cures.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I disagree since the theory of evolution posits an explanation of the existence of life that does not require creator god - it is a simpler explanation fitting all the evidence.



But why discuss the supernatural unless you want to invoke it as an explanation for a natural phenomena? What if there is a stronger theory that explains the same things without recourse to the supernatural which requires still further explanation.

Now my argument falls down if you want to posit a God which is not a creator God, but I don't think most Christians/Jews/Muslims would want to believe in such a thing.

It's too bad I have to leave because I (inexplicably) enjoy these sorts of discussions.

Believers in a creator God have always really only fundamentally insisted that such a creator be the first cause. They do not require that everything be directly created. The line of scientific investigation most relevant to that is physics not biology.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I fail to see exactly how you can be a believing member of the Abrahamic religion taking as literally true the existence of God, while concurring with evolution. A creator god is utterly incompatible with natural selection.

It's not utter incompatible, but then it's a matter of interpretation as much as anything.

To take an example with no religion, I should fail to understand how anyone can believe in General Relativity and quantum mechanics. They are fundamentally incompatible. Go back a hundred so years and you also have the issue of the ultra-violet catastrophe.

What makes me not fail to understand that they must ultimately be compatible with a little change in understanding? [/rhetorical]

[Whaleboy]

Believers in a creator God have always really only fundamentally insisted that such a creator be the first cause. They do not require that everything be directly created. The line of scientific investigation most relevant to that is physics not biology.

It depends how you look at it - personally I feel that the most interesting field is how evolution first came about - lightening in the primeval soup, replicating clay crystals. It's a fascinating question .

The other way of understanding what you said is the question, put simply, of "what caused the big bang?" I suppose this is a case of "here be dragons" at the moment but if I were religious, I would be very wary of making a "god in the gaps" argument.

I find that invoking God as an explanation or first cause still cannot get around the fact that the "first cause" argument involves a conclusion which contradicts one of it's premises, in other words you can break the reasoning down to say that a given result (evolution) must have a series of causes behind it until you reach a first cause, which begs the question of the beginning of God. Since God is supposed to be so much more complex than the universe (and, given the nature of the claims, he'd need to be), why invoke him, except as a kind of "placeholder" until better arguments come along, hence the God in the gaps.

It's too bad I have to leave because I (inexplicably) enjoy these sorts of discussions

Me too! Masochism

Let me clearify, the mechanics of evolution should be taught, but never should it be taught that evolution is the reason for the many species that cover the earth.

Considering that evolution provides a very convincing explanation backed up by reams of evidence for this fact, I find your argument perplexing.

Evolution can easily fit in into creationist beleifs. Such as God could be causing evolution, or (for those who believe God plays a less active in the world today) God created evolution as a method for species to adapt to new environments.

No.

[Whaleboy]

To take an example with no religion, I should fail to understand how anyone can believe in General Relativity and quantum mechanics. They are fundamentally incompatible. Go back a hundred so years and you also have the issue of the ultra-violet catastrophe.

Ah the difference there is that GR and QM are both theories that work very well and fit the evidence, but work in totally different contexts, i.e., very big and very small respectively. A unified field theory should work for both. In the case of evolution/creationism, we have two theories competing for the same "turf". One theory works, one doesn't.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Will
Let me clearify, the mechanics of evolution should be taught, but never should it be taught that evolution is the reason for the many species that cover the earth.

Why not? The evidence is there for it!

Children should be taught science, and the scintific consensus is that all life as we know it evolved from a single ancestor. Should we simply lie and tell them it's not the scientific consensus? Should we just omit what science says from the cirriculum?

Here's what disturbs me about Huckabee and the idea of Creationists in charge: They disregard the conensus of experts in scientific fields. This is dangerous in a time where we need leaders to make good decisions on infrastructure, the environment, medicine/medical research, information technology, and much more, in this increasingly scientifically driven world!

How can we trust someone to make good decisions on science when they've made and hold onto onto such a clearly bad one?

[Whaleboy]

Do you think Huckabee is actually being serious, rather than just cynically trying to appeal to an uneducated Christian electorate?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Ah the difference there is that GR and QM are both theories that work very well and fit the evidence, but work in totally different contexts, i.e., very big and very small respectively. A unified field theory should work for both. In the case of evolution/creationism, we have two theories competing for the same "turf". One theory works, one doesn't.

How strong is your belief in a unified theory?

[Whaleboy]

How strong is your belief in a unified theory?

It's been a few years since I've been very interested in theoretical physics - you might want to start dancing, I'll get the drinks.

[Dauphin]

Sorry, I don't dance.