As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the fact of evolution, but I have many friends and family members that are critical of the theory, and instead side with a creationist view. The thing that bothers me the most about creationism is that it presents no proof for its own hypothesis, and that it's only defense against scientific scrutiny is trying to cut down a more likely explanation. Every piece of evidence for creationism I could find was an argument against evolution, not something supporting their ideas.
Even if some new piece of evidence completely falsified evolution, as unlikely as that is, it doesn't make creationism any more true, nor can we accept it then as a prominent explanation for biodiversity. In science, we must assume a natural explanation for natural phenomena unless given proof of a supernatural presence. If evolution were eliminated, biochemists and biologists would begin working on alternate naturalistic hypotheses, and would not resort to the supernatural even though their predominant theory had been proven false.
I like to see people questioning evolution on scientific grounds, but I don't think an intellectual can make the leap from doubting evolution to a supernatural conclusion. The burden of proof is on the doubters to prove that there is a supernatural power, and that it is responsible for the diversity we see in our current environment. Anyone who does this, in my mind, is someone who places their ideology over the scientific process.
Tell me what you think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. There is some proof to creationism. Well, rather, there is part scientific proof, and part biblical proof. If you don't accept the Bible, that's your problem.
ReplyDelete2. "nor can we accept it then as a prominent explanation for biodiversity". Well, maybe you can't, but I can. If you have to be all scientific and not accept anything without the proof, be my guest. I have faith and I accept creationism.
3. "but I don't think an intellectual can make the leap from doubting evolution to a supernatural conclusion". So basically, if I can do that, I'm not an intellectual? Wow.
The world doesn't necessarily share your views on people based on how they think of creationism, evolution, etc. I don't say people are unintellectual for doing what I don't believe. Therefore, stop being so narrow-minded...it'll do you a world of good.
By the way, I'm not coming back on, so you don't have to waste your time beating this comment down with "there's still no proof", etc. I know people will still say that.
I'm really not going to read it, so do what you like.
How is evolution both a fact and a theory? Theory, by definition, being the result of accumulated evidence, and a likely explenation for an occurence but always able to be disproved based on new evidence. Whereas a fact is something known to be true by experience or observation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when did it get upgraded from a hypothesis to a theory?
To the first comment:
ReplyDelete1. biblical proof is not the same as real proof. It's claims are based on faith, not science, and there have been a great deal of things in the bible that have been conclusively disproven, including the age of the earth and the idea of an earth centered universe.
2.By we I meant the scientific community, which since the dark ages hasn't accepted scripture as proof of anything, and I believe that you have already shot your argument in the foot by making a contrast of my proof-based beliefs and your faith-based beliefs. This is you admitting that creationism has lost in the scientific grounds, and now depends on the faith of its followers. Also, just because you accept it doesn't make it science, just as if you believed in astrology it wouldn't prove anything about that either.
3. An intellectual is someone who bases their opinions on facts and logic, and if you don't do this, and if you resort to the supernatural because of faith and not evidence, yes, i can confidently say that you're not an intellectual in this sense of the word, although you may be a brilliant person otherwise.
As strict as it sounds, in science we can only be open to new ideas that have basis in fact, and we cannot accept supernaturalism without conclusive proof of the deity or its involvement in our world. And people aren't intellectual for not believing what I say, as I don't represent a small part of the scientific community. But, I hold firm that just because other people don't agree with me, that doesn't make my view any less true, and as long as there are people defaming evolution, I'm going to try to give the pro-science opinion in every forum possible.
To the most recent commenter;
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the confusion I created with the opening sentence, as it was supposed to be a prelude to how a theory can be substantiated by evidence to the point where it is almost fact.
As for when it became a theory, how about in the last 150 years when we have discovered mountains of evidence in favor of evolution and opened new fields of study (genetics, etc) devoted to the new technology we use to understand the process. If you definition given above holds true, then evolution is a prime example, alongside atomic theory and the heliocentric view of the universe as one of the central scientific principles of our time.
inherently, the creation theory doesn't need evidence. with a supernatural creator who can do anything, the theory can remain intact although there is no proof whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteas a side note, most creationists are raised that way. if they are homeschooled/ go to a private school, they learn generic arguments against evolution rather than generic arguments for creation.
Creationism isn't neccessarily a Christian belief. The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution and teaches that the Genesis creation stories were a literary device meant to debunk polytheism. As a side thought, how can anyone believe Creationism? The bible contains 2 conflicting accounts
ReplyDelete