Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
I've heard rants and raves about this subject on other forums, so I figured I'd bring the disease here. Please, though:
If you want to argue a point, don't turn this into a flame war. Seriously, just look at philosophy, facts, etc. NOT who has the better insults.
Just to make things clear: I'm for the Creation side of this, and yes I know, there's also an Intelligent Design part arising among scientists. However, I see this as a half-assed attempt to say 'We were created... but not by God.'
I put it in the polls, though, just in case.
So vote, then speak your piece!
Edited and added poll choices. March 25, 2011. ~Tombow
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
This is getting a bit more off point at times. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. What matters is whether God created all living creatures as they are without evolutionary change.
There is anecdotal/paleontological (sp?) evidence that suggests that there were changes in species. For instance, simple similarities between species makes it seem plausible. It may be inconsistent with other scientific concepts, but this is typical of scientific thinking anyway. Not all of it has to gel right away. So, to constantly argue the scientific impossibility of it is really meaningless.
Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete.
Thus, the argument should be framed as to the status of the theory. Is it a testable theory or not? Can it defeat experiments that are designed to prove it wrong? Are there experiments possible to actually test it at all? This is the true weakness of evolutionary theory. It's not even appropriate to call it a scientific theory, but rather a historical-analytic recreation of species change over time. Basically it's more of a historical issue rather than hard science and is more prone to typical problems of interpretation.
Again, I'm a conservative christian with a fairly conservative theology, but I don't like using science itself as a basis for refuting something like this. It's been shown too many times that previous scientific thought has been wrong by new scientific thought (that's why I don't like Argument by Design very much).
Bacon simply has to say that although there may be more involved than we think, it's still plausible because of the historical evidence we've uncovered. There's a possibility that there is something more comprehensive at work, but we don't know about it yet. For all we know, once every million years the laws of nature change to allow for all this stuff. We still don't know the full consequences of 100% exposure to radiation that's not filtered by magnetics of the earth (the sun spots/flares are still partially filtered and if they weren't, we'd probably be fried ).
Call creationism what it is - a theological belief based upon the belief that the verses in the Bible are true and accurate. Science cannot prove theology, it can only assist in showing that it's rational.