Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Human Evolution

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on September 13, 1999 17:56:37 UTC

: You've been reading alot of Scientific Creationism it seems, but that title in itself, given to it by the people who invented it, is logically contradictory to itself. The moment you presume some previous assumptions, for example that "kinds" were created, you are no longer doing science, but you simply work to mold the facts (which themselves are usually intentionally distorted in the first place, at least commonly enough in creation science) to fit what you want them to. This is bigotry! Creationists make it their work to find any little unexplained phenomenae that scientists have not yet been able to figure out, and then think that they can use it against all the other hard factual data to refute the whole theory. This has happened countless times in the long struggle invented and continued by creationists ever since The Origin was published. One of the first was the discovery of fossilized footprints, one from a dinosaur, the other a human, in the same rock formation. Creationists held this as direct evidence against evolution, and also that the discovery was in accordance with scripture, and therefore proving the literal truth of the Bible. Of course since then our ability to correctly date fossils and our understanding of evolution along with geology has solved this apparent paradox and now creationists no longer use this as evidence against the theory. Accordingly they are looking at modern apparent paradoxes. It just doesn't seem logical to me, it seems totally ignorant. We could have stopped a hundred years ago at what the creationists were saying, and just been happy with their view on nature. If we had of done that, we wouldn't have discovered all the facts we have regarding the origin of life, and all the questions and apparent paradoxes in evolution would not have since been solved. So why would it be logical or in any way intelligent to now hang up the boots and declare evolution wrong, against all the factual data supporting it, for a few lingering (yet important but in no way even closely fundamental) questions evolutionists have not been able to answer. That would be ridiculous! The object of science is to find questions and then figure out the answer. In science questions are equally as important as the answers, for what knowledge could we gain without either? An unanswered or hard to answer question is not the enemy of a theory (especially one that is already well formed with an overwhelming amount of factual data supporting it), but serves to shape it. I can see why creationists think that any question they have against evolution is enough for them to think that it is incorrect; it is because they are taught not to question the Bible, and not to question the existence of God. To do so is almost a sin. Not only that, but they are taught that the Bible is the absolute literal truth. This causes them to end up with some idea or feeling that if something is questionable or does not fit their beleifs, then it must surely be wrong. BIGOTRY! : In the end, quite ironically I'm sure from the creationists veiwpoint, creation "science" has done more for evolutionary theory and I'd say nothing against. It is the creationists constant criticism (most welcome in science) of evolution that has helped significantly in its development and understanding. If ever a scientist failed to see a flaw in their theory, the creationist was there to help them find it, and therefore left the scientist to correct it and produce a better theory. Also, due to the creationists attempt to produce creationsist theories, scientists have had to write books to respond to those theories and in every case have been able to dispell their myths and expose their (fundamental) flaws, leaving the reader with a better understanding of the method of science and the discoveries of evolution, geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, meteorology, biology, etc. etc.. So, from the applause of those who seek the truth, some must be directed to the creationists, in their dismal and ignorant attempt to hide it. And that is where they have succeeded in making some headway. Since they can't refute the truth, the most ignorant of them work to conceal it, with foundations such as the Institute for Creation Research and others like it. They even try to get creationism taught in public schools, along side science classes, infringing on people's basic human rights! But I suppose that's been the endeavor of religion since antiquity. : In answer to your posted question. It is a good one. I'm sure there is now some scientist somewhere doing further research into how and how often mutations take place, and in some time this apparent paradox will take its place with the others of the past. I must say that is a very good question, its very practical, very scientific. It will help shape our understanding of processes in evolution quite a bit in our road to answering it.

bzrd here: I would say that neither evolution or creationism qualify as a true science; they both deal with the unobservable and non-repeatable past. Thus, how one interprets evidence depends mostly on ones world-veiw. Evolutionists look at fossil evidence with a materialist assumption. That is, they assume a priori, all that exists is matter and the physical laws. Consequently, they are left with the unenviable task of explaining our existence utilizing only naturalsitic mechanisms. If these mechanisms are found wanting (as is often the case) they rather lamely suggest that further evidence remains to be found. For example, when Darwin first postulated his theory, he was aware the fossil evidence only weakly supported it. But, he was confident, good evidence would be forth-coming. Clearly, this was not the case, so "punctuated equilibrium" was introduced as a mechanism to salvage Darwin's theory. Ask an evolutionist if punctuated equilibrium has ever been observed and he will tell you to look at the fossil record. This form of circular reasoning hardly helps their case in my estimation. On the other hand, much of the fossil evidence is rather easily accomodated by creationism. Usually without much of the convoluted reasoning that accompanies most evolutionist's accounts.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins