From: "Anthony"
Subject: Rebuttal to "Is Creationism Science"
I came across this article on your we site and want to point out that it is crying out for corrections. I will use the articles own criteria to show that Creationism is in fact a science
This will be an amusing attempt by someone to "rebut" my article describing how and why creationism doesn't qualify as science. It is, in my experience, quite typical of creationist writing.
1. Consistent - Creationism is based on theories which themselves are based on sound scientific fact. The fact that life cannot come from non- life is a scientific fact that has yet to be disputed.
Anthony makes it clear that, right from the beginning, he doesn't understand what is going on. Even if it were true that creationism were based upon "sound scientific fact," that isn't really relevant to the criterion of "logical consistency," the criterion Anthony thinks he is showing that creationism meets.
Even today, Reuters reported the building of a living organism in a lab. This was only done by using DNA from a living organism.
Actually, the creation of a living organism was done using synthetic genes, not genes from another living organism. So much for Anthony using facts, huh?
Evolution states that DNA evolved through Quantum Leaps over a short period of time.
Evolutionary theory states no such thing. Some ideas advanced suggest that, at times, evolution proceeds more quickly than at others. In this case "more quickly" must be understood on a geologic scale - perhaps several hundred thousand years instead of tens of millions of years. Still a pretty long time, no? Certainly not "Quantum Leaps."
The reason this is a evolutionary theory is that DNA is Very Complex and because of its complexity, life exists.
Uh, no. Life does not exist simply because DNA is "Very Complex" (does capitalizing the words somehow make them more important?). Life exists because DNA replicates itself and produces organisms which replicate themselves.
With any variance in DNA life would not exist.
That isn't true, either. DNA can go through many variations without compromising life. Some segments of DNA are very delicate and cannot change much, but others are a different story. Variation is, indeed, the basis of evolution - and the existence of variation in a population over time is a scientific fact.
Therefore life comes from life. That is very consistent. Evolution has no consistency at all. It states that life evolved over billions of years but that DNA, the stuff of life had to quantum leap into existence in exact form to allow life to exist.
That's two false statements. First, evolution says nothing about the origin of DNA- evolution is only concerned with the development of life, not how life first came about. Second, DNA as we currently see it did not have to exist in this current form in order for life to exist, nor does evolution teach that it did. Quite the contrary in fact: if DNA hadn't changed from the origin of life until today, evolution would be incorrect. Evolutionary theory describes how and why DNA changes over time.
Then for life to evolve, Quantum leaps had to occur for that life to survive. This proves that evolution and not creationism has no boundaries, and this is just one example.
Actually, whether "Quantum Leaps" occurred is still a matter of debate. Not everyone agrees that evolution proceeded relatively quickly some times and hardly at all other times.
Parsimonious - the simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate and simply stating life sprang from happenstance is the most simplistic explanation of all.
Of course the simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate. Evolution, however, does not say anything about the origin of life, much less that it sprang from happenstance.
Sir Arther Conan Doyle once wrote,"...When you have excluded the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be truth." This remains a very important fact in scientific (or any)research.
I don't know any scientific texts which teach this "very important fact of scientific research." I asked Anthony cite a couple. I'm still waiting.
Einstein even told a person that he could not rule out the divine because many times that was the only logical conclusion.
This was a curious assertion - I asked Anthony to provide a quote and source for where Einstein said this. I'm still waiting.
He stated "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Yes, Einstein appears to have been a Deist. So what?
The reasons Creationist believe in divine intervention is not just simply the quoting of a religious text but the admiration of the hand of the divine in many details (example DNA).
That presumes that a "divine" exists. Science cannot make such an assumption because: First, there is no scientific evidence for it; second, since it is not a natural phenomenon, no predictions can be made about it and it cannot be incorporated into any scientific theories.
This does not violate the principle of parsimony but brings out the very heart that William of Occam was stating. Creationism requires the fewest assumptions.
Creationism requires that we assume the existence of a particular type of god which acted in a particular type of way and for particular reasons. That's a lot of assumptions and that's why creationism isn't very parsimonious.
Useful- we have seen that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are largely true because of the practical applications that are in use today - cell phones, microwave ovens, sending vehicles to distant planets, etc.
No, they are true because of the math and the evidence which supports them. Science does not operate on the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, which Anthony is describing. The practical effects help bolster our confidence in the science, no question about it, but the truth of the science is established long before technological products are brought to the market.
In all of its theorems and speculations evolution has no practical applications.
Actually, evolutionary theory is the central organizing principle of all the biological sciences. Nothing done in biology today makes sense outside of evolution. Thus, the practical application of evolutionary theory can be found in what biologists do - and that includes the medical sciences as well. Research, for example, into cloning and diseases is dependent upon the assumptions of evolution.
Creationism is filled with practical applications. From the discovery of herbal based remedies to the plotting of ocean currents the beliefs born with faith in the Bible have produced numerous scientific discoveries with many more to come.
Of the things Anthony lists, only faith is genuinely connected with creationism because that's what creationism is: a religious faith, not a science. Faith, however, isn't really a "practical application."
Soon ,using creation based facts and theories, the melding of the theories of relativity and quantum science will be a reality. The practical applications form that science would have made Gene Roddenberry smile.
I asked Anthony to explain how creationism will help to unify quantum mechanics and relativity. I'm still waiting.
Empirically Testable and Falsifiable - creationism is testable. When subatomic research breaks down the very essence of the make up of matter, we begin to understand how creation took place.
I asked Anthony to explain how creationism is empirically testable and verifiable. I'm still waiting.
Testing of Creationist theories is an on going process.
I asked Anthony to tell me about some of the scientific tests done to tell whether your god created everything. I'm still waiting.
It is describable (the six numbers that allow life to exist in this universe), it provides models for making predictions (such as the "brane theory"), it can be verified and tested.
Anthony keeps saying this, but he never explains what these tests are. I want to set up a scientific test which, if successful, points to the truth of creationism rather than evolutionary theory. A repeatable, verifiable test which is not in any way dependent upon religious faith or doctrine.
To use quotes from creationist to support the opposite is like bringing into quantum mechanics the "ether world".
I use quotes from creationists to demonstrate that creationism is not a science because leading creationists acknowledge that creationism is not a science. What does Anthony know that they don't?
Creationist admit that Biblical Revelation is a source that is proven by sound scientific fact.
I asked Anthony to provide references to the scientific tests that were done on "Biblical Revelation," along with the results and the comments made by peer reviewers. I'm still waiting
The only thing that may not be "testable" is ones relationship with the Creator.
That's kind of a key point of creationism, isn't it? Anthony is essentially admitting that a central claim made by creationists cannot be tested and, hence, is not scientific.
Correctable and and dynamic - evolution is based on scientific dissonance, what it does not agree with gets thrown out.
What Anthony seems to mean is that what does not agree with the results of repeated tests gets set aside - that's how science works. Doesn't Anthony know that?
Many scientific advances find no place in evolution because as was once stated facts are the enemy of "truth".
I asked Anthony to name these "scientific advances." I'm still waiting.
Creationism is changing as new discoveries show how things act(example the speed of light, teleportation, subatomic structure). The basic foundation does not change, but the building is refreshed with every new fact.
I asked Anthony to please name these "changes." I'm still waiting.
In closing it is evolution that does not follow any scientific method. Left to stand without assumptions,best guesses, quantum leaps and out right neglect of scientific fact evolution can be seen for what it is, nothing but a myth!
If evolution does not follow from any scientific method, why is it so successful in making predictions? Why do all lines of evidence so far tested point to the truth of evolutionary theory? Why do all working biologists rely upon evolutionary theory?
And if creationism is so scientific, why was Anthony incapable of answering basic questions about it? Why wasn't Anthony able to support a single one of his assertions? There isn't much "meat" to this letter (especially since Anthony ignored some of the criteria and didn't address anything I wrote about how creationism fails to meet any of them), but I wanted to post it in order to demonstrate that sometimes the best way to "refute" some nonsense is to simply step back and require the person making the claims to support what they are saying. It isn't uncommon for them to engage in all sorts of evasions before turning tail and running. Sometimes, like Anthony, they don't even expend that much effort.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment