Experimental Creationism

[lunamoth]

Creationism/"baraminology" suggests that if we go looking, we'll find some sort of mechanism that prevents mutation from progressing beyond a certain point.

Lol, yes. It's called: death.

 

[Noaidi]

Evolution, like other sciences, can be seen to be predictive. ID should be subject to the same scrutiny: what, in terms of the natural world, can be predicted by ID? Can anything within the natural order be predicted in terms of ID that couldn't be predicted by evolution?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So we would have to see "God throwing the dice" at a quantum or sub-quantum level?
How would we distinguish "intelligent dice throwing" from "natural dice throwing"?

wa:do

Good question. Guess there needs to be a criteria developed as to what would constitute one or the other so it could be identified. Don't have the foggiest clue as to how to go about establishing such a criteria. I mean how does one start with something that has never ever been directly observed and no prior supporting evidence to even suggest IDT?

I would think that we would need to go on with something that we already know something about like NDT and use what we know as a control, and then look for anything unusual and out of the norm and investigate, make a determination if it warrants further investigation, and go from there until there is a definitive answer. Of course I suspect the sun may go red giant by that time. -NM-

 

[evolved yet?]

Find a rat that has 99% similarities in the DNA to an e.coli bacterium and has no pseudogenes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, yes. It's called: death.

I meant cumulative mutation built up over many successive generations.

Modern evolutionary theory basically says that with small steps over each generation, there's no theoretical limit to how different an organism can get from that first initial ancestor. "Baraminology" says that there is one: the "kind". While they do play fast-and-loose on the definition of a "kind", it does create the idea that the history of life should look fundamentally different: instead of the "tree of life", we'd see a "creationist orchard".

 

[HonestJoe]

Is there any way to scientifically provide evidence of Creationism or Intelligent Design? (mind you this is not the same as disproving evolution)

No, because neither "Creationism" nor "Intelligent Design" are anywhere close to being clearly defined hypotheses. We'd require a lot more detailed specification as to exactly what we're trying to prove before determining whether there is a practical method to test it.

 

[Atomist]

Modern evolutionary theory basically says that with small steps over each generation, there's no theoretical limit to how different an organism can get from that first initial ancestor.

You don't even need to small steps over each generation. You could have no change for thousands of generation and all of a sudden a large change in a few generation. All evolution requires is that there isn't anything that kills is so detrimental to the species that it kills the whole species and some beneficial mutations.

 

[evolved yet?]

No, because neither "Creationism" nor "Intelligent Design" are anywhere close to being clearly defined hypotheses. We'd require a lot more detailed specification as to exactly what we're trying to prove before determining whether there is a practical method to test it.

Ya just look at ID, Dawkins and others think it is god aided evolution, but Kenneth Miller and many others think it is synonymous to progressive creationism.

 

[painted wolf]

No, because neither "Creationism" nor "Intelligent Design" are anywhere close to being clearly defined hypotheses. We'd require a lot more detailed specification as to exactly what we're trying to prove before determining whether there is a practical method to test it.

So, if they came up with a more defined hypothesis do you think it would be possible to test it?

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, if they came up with a more defined hypothesis do you think it would be possible to test it?

Personally, I think that some forms of creationism are theoretically testable, but I don't think it's possible to make a defined, testable hypothesis from the precepts of ID.

 

[painted wolf]

I tend to agree... ID is thus far the least scientifically useful of the creationist breeds.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to agree... ID is thus far the least scientifically useful of the creationist breeds.

wa:do

No pun intended, but I think that's by design. Other forms of creationism are at least genuine (if mistaken) attempts to explain how life arose. ID, OTOH, is mainly an attempt to fit legal requirements to be taught in school, and to be a supposedly "less controversial" contrast to Darwinian evolution. I think they figured that if it wasn't falsifiable, then it wouldn't be vulnerable to being actually falsified.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree... unfortunately for them, that made them even more vulnerable to being declared religious propaganda in a court of law.

wa:do