Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[leibowde84]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Evolution and speciation is supported by a plethora of objective evidence. Creationism is not supported by any objective evidence, but is, rather, a conclusion based on unsubstantiated claims in scripture. So, there seems to be a monumental difference.

 

[leibowde84]

My point was that whatever you follow is a choice of a free individual in an act of faith that for most people may not be actually dependent on clear or solid facts.

If you talk about science, it's important to acknowledge the difference between facts and theories. Science itself is ever changing. Accepted since principals according to Newton were revolutionized by Einstein.

Yes, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I am against science. It's actually totally the opposite. Yes science is an extreme necessity in our lives. I even would accept specific scientific aspects of the evolution itself. I accept that live as created can adapt and evolve within limits but as a theory, the evolution is by no means a solid fact nor it explains the origins of live.

Evolution is theory that try to explain live in absence of creation but creation is not limited to live, its about every thing in existence. So if I would compare, I would compare Creationism vs the Big Bang not the evolution.

A "scientific theory" like the theory of evolution is not a mere "theory" or "hypothesis", like creationism. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[Zosimus]

A "scientific theory" like the theory of evolution is not a mere "theory" or "hypothesis", like creationism. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

No it isn't. That's explanation is pure propoganda.

A scientific theory is any theory that is empirically testable. The phlogiston theory, for example, is a scientific theory. It is not, however, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

 

[Sapiens]

No it isn't. That's explanation is pure propoganda.

A scientific theory is any theory that is empirically testable. The phlogiston theory, for example, is a scientific theory. It is not, however, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

There is no longer a phlogiston theory, it has been replaced. That's how science works ... yah gotta keep up on the literature, it appears that you have fallen a bit behind, after all it was in the 1780s when Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier showed that combustion requires a gas that has mass (oxygen) and could be measured by means of weighing closed vessels. Come on, catch up, next we can work on that outdated bible of yours.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A "scientific theory" like the theory of evolution is not a mere "theory" or "hypothesis", like creationism. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

??

String 'theory', steady state 'theory', big crunch 'theory' climate change 'theory' M 'theory'

repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation? you think?!

In popular/academic science, the word theory is a label used to try to lend a sense of weight to a favored idea, in lieu of any application of that pesky uncooperative scientific method

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't. That's explanation is pure propoganda.

A scientific theory is any theory that is empirically testable. The phlogiston theory, for example, is a scientific theory. It is not, however, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

It is certainly not propaganda and is 100% accurate. The term "scientific theory" is a well-known and commonly used scientific term that has a very specific meaning very different than the word "theory" in common usage. The following link explains it very well - http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html. Take a look and get back to me.

The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory. In the link I provided it explains how a scientific theory is not fact or a certainty and can be disproved with further evidence and a better scientific theory.

 

[leibowde84]

String 'theory', steady state 'theory', big crunch 'theory' climate change 'theory' M 'theory'

These are not "scientific theories", they are merely "theories" or "hypotheses". Take a look at the following link from live science.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

[Sapiens]

"String Theory" and "M Theory" were self inflation (common in physics "theories). "Steady State" was a demotion to put it on a plane with the BB, same for Big Crunch. Climate Change is a legitimate theory,

 

[leibowde84]

"String Theory" and "M Theory" were self inflation (common in physics "theories). "Steady State" was a demotion to put it on a plane with the BB, same for Big Crunch. Climate Change is a legitimate theory,

There are a lot of scientists who regard them as hypotheses or theories rather than substantiated scientific theories.

 

[Sapiens]

Few scientists see climate change as a hypotheses or popular theory. I try to not get much involved in the self-promotion of physicists and cosmologists views.

 

[Zosimus]

There is no longer a phlogiston theory, it has been replaced. That's how science works ... yah gotta keep up on the literature, it appears that you have fallen a bit behind, after all it was in the 1780s when Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier showed that combustion requires a gas that has mass (oxygen) and could be measured by means of weighing closed vessels. Come on, catch up, next we can work on that outdated bible of yours.

First of all, there still is a phlogiston theory, and the theory is still scientific. It's just been falsified.
Oh, and I don't have an outdated Bible. I'm agnostic.

 

[Zosimus]

It is certainly not propaganda and is 100% accurate. The term "scientific theory" is a well-known and commonly used scientific term that has a very specific meaning very different than the word "theory" in common usage. The following link explains it very well - http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html. Take a look and get back to me.

Sure, I've seen that link dozens of times given out by clueless debaters on fora such as this one.

However, a theory is just a theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

These are not "scientific theories", they are merely "theories" or "hypotheses". Take a look at the following link from live science.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

okay fine, but then Wikipedia disagrees with you:

Examples of scientific theories[edit]
Note that many fields of inquiry do not have specific named theories, e.g. developmental biology. Scientific knowledge outside a named theory can still have a high level of certainty, depending on the amount of evidence supporting it. Also note that since theories draw evidence from many different fields, the categorization is not absolute.

• Biology: cell theory, modern evolutionary synthesis, germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
• Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
• Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
• Other: Climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology), theories of the origin of the Moon, theories for the Moon illusion,

so all we can establish is that there is little agreement over what constitutes a scientific theory.

So again in effect, it is a label used to make an any idea sound more legitimate, whether or not there is a scrap of empirical evidence or scientific method applied.

with regards to climastrology and evolution, it's not even clear which of many wildly varying philosophical speculations the big yellow 'scientific!' sticker is supposed to be currently stuck to

That apparently changes as often as the weather or latest fake missing link?

 

[secret2]

No it isn't. That's explanation is pure propoganda.

A scientific theory is any theory that is empirically testable. The phlogiston theory, for example, is a scientific theory. It is not, however, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

"Evolution is empirically testable" and "we are able to re-run the whole evolutionary history on Earth" are two very different claims, and you seem to be confusing them.

 

[NoorNoor]

Sorry... but "To me both are some sort of belief systems" is a wrong statement.
Belief is to consider something true no matter if there are no evidence what so ever to verify it.
Evolution have thousands of supporting evidence...

Let's assume you have enough knowledge of TOE and it's supporting evidence. Do you think this is the case with every evolutionist? What would be the percentage of evolutionists who have proper understanding of the theory, the mechanisms and the supporting evidence? I would say a minority. In that sense, the belief of the majority in The TOE, would be an act of faith. I don't say the TOE itself is a belief system but rather the typical act of adapting an ideology without adequate verification.

In your case, I wonder what are the specific supporting evidence that makes you believe in the TOE?

The problem is that most theist don't even bother to check and learn the evidence rather arguing that the evidence is lacking...

You are making a claim. It may be correct. But also " how many evolutionist bother to check and learn the supporting evidence of the TOE? If they don't, what would be the basis of their beleif? "

And you get my point...

I guess your point is that people as rational beings tend to think of things as involving a purpose. (Which actually helps understanding natural phenomena.) This imbedded understanding in our consciousness expresses cognition about a possibility/need of purpose for every thing including the entire universe. If the order in the world is objective and not an invention of our minds, such order expresses some kind of objective rationality, as rational beings, we can comprehend such order because it expresses rationality/purpose consistent with the intrinsic cognition of purpose imbedded in our consciousness. There is no explanation for the mechanism of this internal access/self awareness state (The problem of consciousness /why we have qualia). It appears to reflect a none physical aspect of our beings that can't be explained by any physical process.

So while theists rely on nothing but stories and beliefs without a shred of proof

Not true, theists rely on the rational interpretations of the world around us. For example, many scientists such as Newton, Einstein and Michio Kaku have their own reasons/interpretations that support their specific understanding of a Diety. if these rational understanding/interpretations are not acknowledged by atheists, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Science is based on learning, understanding, testing, falsifying, proving, thinking..

There is ZERO belief in science... there is wonder, there is questioning, there is skepticism, but no belief...

Any theory that is based on belief only, is not considered scientific theory!

If we ignore multiverse, m theory , string theory, I'll tell you another assumed scientific theory based on belief only. ""All facts/absolute existence can be determined only through observations, testing, falsifying."" whatever is beyond this method is not acknowledged as existent from a scientific point of view. In another words, science considers the limits of the empirical method as the limits of the absolute existence. Can you test, falsify, prove this claim scientifically? You can't. Yet, I guess you believe it (an act of faith).

If you consider an example of a TV tuned only to one frequency/one channel, all other channels are totally invisible to that TV. Does this mean, all other channels don't exist or it's only the limitation of the TV.

And please do not mix Scientific Idea with theological thinking...
Scientific idea is just is an idea.. not a claim that the idea is true UNTIL proven otherwise

Isn't that how a theory works? A theory is assumed, then tested for consistency with observations. If consistent, then it's accepted scientifically (UNTIL proven otherwise). If theism/intelligent design is a theory consistent with the understanding of the creation point at the big bang, the fine tuning/overall order of the world, historical records (many reasons to support the probability), why can't it be accepted until proven otherwise?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

String 'theory', steady state 'theory', big crunch 'theory' climate change 'theory' M 'theory'

repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation? you think?!

In popular/academic science, the word theory is a label used to try to lend a sense of weight to a favored idea, in lieu of any application of that pesky uncooperative scientific method

"Steady state" theory was "confirmed" though observation due to lack of observable evidence (red shift, background cosmic radiation, etc) to the contrary. And please, for once, let's leave Hoyle out of this.

"Big Crunch" is not a favored theory; but is not completely out the window yet. Here is an informative link on the Big Crunch: http://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/

Climate change theory is well established by many bodies of evidence and observation.

"String theory" and "M Theory" belong to a scientific discipline called "theoretical physics". Theoretical physics, as its name implies, use the term "theory" differently than the majority of other scientific disciplines; with most of its evidence depending on mathematical calculation rather than experimentation, observation.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Isn't that how a theory works? A theory is assumed, then tested for consistency with observations. If consistent, then it's accepted scientifically (UNTIL proven otherwise). If theism/intelligent design is a theory consistent with the understanding of the creation point at the big bang, the fine tuning/overall order of the world, historical records (many reasons to support the probability), why can't it be accepted until proven otherwise?

Because you are confused about the scientific definition of "theory". A theory is never "assumed" in science; only tentative conclusions are assumed, and that, being based on evidence.

And I say again; that historical records of goat herder's assumptions of things certainly do nothing whatsoever to validate the "probability" of anything.

So therefore, creationism can't be "accepted until proven otherwise" as there is no good evidence to accept it.

 

[Zosimus]

"Evolution is empirically testable" and "we are able to re-run the whole evolutionary history on Earth" are two very different claims, and you seem to be confusing them.

First of all, your answer is irrelevant. My point was that all empirically testable theories are scientific theories not that evolution was untestable.

Second, to the extent that neo-Darwinism is testable (as opposed to biological evolution), it relies on the tacking by disjunction paradox. The same thing could be set up to make anything seem testable. For example, let's take the celestial teapot example. Since the teapot is undetectable, one could easily say that the theory is untestable. However, if we tack another theory onto the celestial teapot theory, voila we have a testable theory. To make the absurdity clear, I will tack on something that has nothing to do with the celestial teapot. I will use "fire is hot" as the new claim.

So the new theory is "There is a celestial teapot orbiting the Sun, and fire is hot." So when you say that the theory is untestable, because the teapot cannot be observed, the opponent claims that the theory could be falsified if you only find a fire that isn't hot!

I hope that the absurdity of the situation is clear.

So when someone says, "Natural selection is untestable" proponents of neo-Darwinism tend to say that natural selection is just a part of the whole Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, all of which could be disproved by finding a Precambrian rabbit fossil.

It's just tacking by disjunction all over again.

 

[NoorNoor]

Steady state" theory was "confirmed" though observation due to lack of observable evidence

Confirmed/accepted at on one time, then rejected at another time. The acceptance (or confirmation) of a theory may not be absolute. It's subject to change. Acceptance/rejection depends on when You were born.

"String theory" and "M Theory" belong to a scientific discipline called "theoretical physics". Theoretical physics, as its name implies, use the term "theory" differently than the majority of other scientific disciplines; with most of its evidence depending on mathematical calculation rather than experimentation, observation.

Providing a label, doesn't add any more legitimacy to a theory. The mathematical calculations provide endless possibilities Not evidence.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/2015...hilosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

 

[Sapiens]

Confirmed/accepted at on one time, then rejected at another time. The acceptance (or confirmation) of a theory may not be absolute. It's subject to change. Acceptance/rejection depends on when You were born.

You do not seem to understand. Theories are always subject to change. Legitimacy flows not from a label, but rather from the theory's ability to withstand falsification from ever increasing sources of criticism.