What creationists get right

[GT WT]

Interesting article in The Scientist by Gordy Slack, a journalist who covered the Dover Intelligent Design trial.
The Link

He argues that the creationists/intelligent design proponents, while wrong, have some valid arguments:

1) there are still gaps in biological explanations (e.g., for the origin of life)

2) that aspects of life (e.g., cellular structure & function) are dauntingly complex.

3) that creationists have their own evidence, subjective though it may be, for the existence of The Designer (i.e., God).

4) that evolution proponents can be just as guilty of ‘religious’ fervor as any Christian Fundamentalist.

Slack isn’t a creationist, but he does suggest that defenders of science and education should be less dismissive of creationist arguments.

 

[MaduroUTMB]

Creationists/ID folks don't want to win. They think that they do but they don't.

If you view this in the larger context of academic disciplines, you see that what the Creationists are trying to do- namely, manufacture science to fit their theology- is very similar to what some "scientists" do- manufacture philosophy to fit their science. Both cases wind up being stupid, as you wind up with drastically overreaching claims that wouldn't stand on their own in a million years. You state that because you have a big religious following or a solid set of publications (or maybe just one publication that kind of sucked), you then have license to make totally unrelated claims that carry the same weight as your statements in the field that you actually know something about. I am not a fan.

There is no reason that scientists can't be philosophers or that religious wackos can't promote whatever version of science makes them feel good. But when those people claim that expertise in one area gives them credibility to speak with authority on another, the ******** Detector pegs out at 11.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't'get the article. Science isn't dismissive of Creationism. Science is dismissive of the effort to call Creationism a Science. Or Intelligent Design a Science.

I have no problem with ID proponents coming up with and proposing a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that would clearly offer supporting evidence for ID. But, of course, the test would have to be understood to discount ID if the results are negative.

 

[Fievel121]

Many scientist beleive in God, but, they used the scientific method in their day jobs. Thats the difference. If you go to the doctor and he prescribes medication, faith that the medicine will "just work" or proven scientific study that it does.

Scientist should not argue that God does or doesn't exist, since it cannot be verified. And creationist should listened to scientist about verifiable facts, but not about faith.

 

[stabone]

Good posts from Maduro, Huck, and Fievel, I agree 100%.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

Since these questions are essentially unanswerable, given what we know and are able to know today, I would respectfully propose an alternative position:

So what.

That's it. Maybe there is a Creator, or maybe it is all a big biological accident. But my theory is so what.

Here, I can prove it: so what.

Top that.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, I forgot to mention how irritating it is for someone to bring up the origin of life question when discussing evolution.

The TOE doesn't propose any idea on the origin of life, how life started, who started it, etc. It deals with life once it exists. So mentioning the origin of life as a gap in science while discussing evolution is stupid.

 

[GT WT]

Huckleberry,

It's true that Darwin meant for the TOE to account for evolution from the inception of life onward. However, I'm not sure that it's useful to suggest that prebiotic processes are unrelated to the evolution of life. Science will come up with an explanation for how life came to be. That explanation won't involve magic. Just as importantly, understanding abiogenesis will tell us a great deal about early life on Earth.

By the way, there is a great deal of interesting ongoing research on abiogenesis. (see 'the RNA World' hypothesis The Link ). The gulf between chemistry and biology is growing narrower.

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

Evolution is a flawed theory therefore this stengthens the argument that Lord Brahma is the true creator of the universe. This is what any devout Hindu will tell you.

This is why your thread is a faliure, GT WT. Now that you've attacked evolution, why should I believe that Yahweh is the true creator instead of Lord Brahma? Apparently, all I have to do is attack evolution and this means that ANYBODY could be the true creator. Just name your preferred creator and attacking evolution makes it all true.

Now that we've thrashed evolution, why should we believe in Yahweh over Brahma (or anybody else)?

 

[Huckleberry]

GT WT is not bashing evolution, I assure you. He is simply trying to offer some balance to the discussion. I commend him for that.

GT WT,

I agree that abiogenesis is a valid topic of discussion regarding the origin of life. I'm merely saying that discrediting (or describing as lacking) the TOE as it currently exists because it doesn't account for the origin of life is intellectually dishonest.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

i would like to point out that GT is not at all a creationist....he regularly tries to bash me for being one though. i am actually an ID guy who believes the earth is billions of years old and that evolution just doesn't explain well how life has grown to this level of complexity. i distinguish from micro-evolution and macro-evolution......the former is non-controversial in my estimation and evidence for it abounds, while the latter is lacking in evidence (beyond extrapolation that is) and i question it.......

but i do commend GT for this thoughtful thread.....my image of him as the guy always looking for a chance to bash me has grown immeasurably.

thanks!

 

[Hayden_Horn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[stabone]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Huckleberry]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theropods]

There is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution except time. None whatsoever. By the way, they have successfully created new fruit fly species in the lab now using microevolution over multiple generations. This would I believe qualify as macroevolution (creation of new species). So if you believe in microevolution, you know have to believe in macroevolution too unless you think the scientists in that study are lying.

 

[RockyBalboa]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RockyBalboa]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

RB

Thanks for your response. I don't think we'll ever reach an agreement. We each look at life from a very different perspective. However, the discussion may bring me closer to understanding how you believe the things you believe. It also allows me to clarify some issues that may seem important to casual observers of the creationism controversy.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[justobservering]

Some of what you'll find on the "peer reviewed" answersgenesis site.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RockyBalboa]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RockyBalboa]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Hi Rocky, sorry to hear about the contest to publish a bogus paper in the AIG journal. I hope that's not true.

There's an interesting article on blind cave salamanders on Slate -
The Link

I don't think the article will change your mind - it's too confrontational in tone and word - but I do think you will find it interesting.

 

[RockyBalboa]

Yeah, they lost the eye. It was a loss of genetic information. The mutation was beneficial, and enabled the fish to survive. Nonetheless, the direction of the change was towards loss. The exact opposite of Darwinian evolution. I've included two links to two different Creationist responses to that article.


The LinkThe Link (scroll down to item two)

Today was literally the first day I could get on Hornfans in a week. It either wouldn't load, or I got a message saying the forums were down. Is our conversation finished because of that or are we just done?

 

[GT WT]

RockyBalboa,

I've had problems here too. Slow or no loading.

P. Z. Meyers addresses the creationist response to the blind salamander article here -
The Link

He discusses work on another blind cave organism, the blind cave tetra. Like the salamander, this fish has lost it's eyes. However, the 'loss' of genetic information is only part of the story. The fish has also gained information. The muscles of the mandible and maxilla have expanded - they've become stronger. Even more interesting, the nerves in these regions have become more extensive. These genetically mediated changes in morphology are possible only because of the reduction in space and neural connections devoted to the eyes. In other words the changes are adaptive.

You still say that new genetic information can't occur. I respond that gene duplication has been shown to produce new genetic information. You respond that new information is impossible. It appears we are at an impass.

If you want to discuss the issue more, I'm game. I suspect neither of us are going to change our positions much.