Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[painted wolf]

Actually I think the problem here may be people view science as being either right and wrong.

Agreed!

Where as many scientists take the useful or not useful approach. A model can be "wrong" but useful because what it omits have no real effect on the outcome.

I think the proper term would be "incomplete" rather than "wrong". If the model was genuinely "wrong" it wouldn't be useful.

But otherwise I agree.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

I think that in any zealous creationist's mind, evolution is framed merely as an obstruction (for others) on the path to religious faith. They expect that if they could only remove the obstruction, a complete journey to religious faith will inevitably occur in everyone, everywhere.

I think our debates would be more fruitful if people like rusra02 acknowledged the real obstruction standing in the path to fundamentalism is actually deductive reasoning. If he somehow managed to take out evolution but not deductive reasoning, it would have no net impact on the number of religious fanatics in the world. In the place evolution once sat would not be "THATMEANSGODDIDIT!" but "Well, back to the drawing board - let's figure this thing out".

 

[lunakilo]

Actually I think the problem here may be people view science as being either right and wrong. Where as many scientists take the useful or not useful approach. A model can be "wrong" but useful because what it omits have no real effect on the outcome.

I think the problem (if you can call it a problem since I have enjoyed reading this thread ) is that people got stuck arguing about definitions and ignored the question in the OP.

It isn't really relevant if you can refute a scientific theory or not.

The point of the OP as I understand it is, what if enough evidence came to light which made it clear that the theory of evolution really didn't describe reality very well. The evidence would have to be so clear that the scientific comunity and the general public could all see that the theory of evolution was fundamentally flawed.

Then what?

 

[lunakilo]

I think that in any zealous creationist's mind, evolution is framed merely as an obstruction (for others) on the path to religious faith. They expect that if they could only remove the obstruction, a complete journey to religious faith will inevitably occur in everyone, everywhere.

I think our debates would be more fruitful if people like rusra02 acknowledged the real obstruction standing in the path to fundamentalism is actually deductive reasoning. If he somehow managed to take out evolution but not deductive reasoning, it would have no net impact on the number of religious fanatics in the world. In the place evolution once sat would not be "THATMEANSGODDIDIT!" but "Well, back to the drawing board - let's figure this thing out".

I think you are right.

... and points for answering the OP :clap

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually, what would happen [talking about the OP], is that as a sprinkle on the victory parade, creationists would be faced with the massive and most likely disappointing scientific pursuit of discovering the actual identity of the Intelligent Designers. In their myopic view, any victory results in their win by default; yet, the process of elimination has never honestly been attempted.

And since the design of the universe implies multiple designers, their God is not really in the running. Especially since he gets the order wrong right there in Genesis anyway.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was refuted, and shown to be entirely wrong. Evolution and common descent is one of the very few theories it at least seems that isn't likely to happen to, but all we have to go by is what is currently the best available data and observations, and all scientific theories are subject to change and even being scrapped entirely. Much like how it was strong science that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but it's starting to look like that is not the case at all.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, what would happen [talking about the OP], is that as a sprinkle on the victory parade, creationists would be faced with the massive and most likely disappointing scientific pursuit of discovering the actual identity of the Intelligent Designers. In their myopic view, any victory results in their win by default; yet, the process of elimination has never honestly been attempted.

And since the design of the universe implies multiple designers, their God is not really in the running. Especially since he gets the order wrong right there in Genesis anyway.

No, not even that. If evolution were refuted that does not by default mean that anything was designed. I suppose that it would leave open the possibility of design, but it would also leave open the possibility of some as yet undiscovered non-design naturalistic mechanism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, what would happen [talking about the OP], is that as a sprinkle on the victory parade, creationists would be faced with the massive and most likely disappointing scientific pursuit of discovering the actual identity of the Intelligent Designers. In their myopic view, any victory results in their win by default; yet, the process of elimination has never honestly been attempted.

I think a theory based on alien lifeforms planting life on earth, and manipulating it's development by putting stuff in the atmosphere would happen long before a godly-designer based theory would happen.

 

[rusra02]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

I believe the weight of evidence is overwhelming against the ToE. Still, that will not prevent people from believing in it. And it is not my intent to convert the world. The implication of believing in Creation vs Evolution is that there is a Creator, to whom we are responsible. To believe in Evolution, one must deny what the Bible teaches about God, his purposes, about Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, and the hope of everlasting life. (John 17:3,Matthew 20:28) You must believe that much, if not all, of what the Bible says is myth or allegory, not reality.
Each person can and should search for the truth; truth about where life came from, about God, about the meaning of life. Evolutionists (in my opinion) seek to deny persons the opportunity to do this by trying to silence anyone who disagrees with their theory. I hope each person has the opportunity to hear both sides of the story and not be bullied by the ToE proponents OR believers in Creation from examining the facts for themselves. Where those facts lead each person is for each person to decide.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the weight of evidence is overwhelming against the ToE.

With all due respect (literally), how would you know? What credentials do you possess that leads you to believe yourself capable of properly weighing the evidence?

 

[doppelganger]

With all due respect (literally), how would you know? What credentials do you possess that leads you to believe yourself capable of properly weighing the evidence?

Ummmm . .. . his religious beliefs? What more does one need?

 

[Alceste]

I believe the weight of evidence is overwhelming against the ToE. Still, that will not prevent people from believing in it. And it is not my intent to convert the world. The implication of believing in Creation vs Evolution is that there is a Creator, to whom we are responsible. To believe in Evolution, one must deny what the Bible teaches about God, his purposes, about Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, and the hope of everlasting life. (John 17:3,Matthew 20:28) You must believe that much, if not all, of what the Bible says is myth or allegory, not reality.
Each person can and should search for the truth; truth about where life came from, about God, about the meaning of life. Evolutionists (in my opinion) seek to deny persons the opportunity to do this by trying to silence anyone who disagrees with their theory. I hope each person has the opportunity to hear both sides of the story and not be bullied by the ToE proponents OR believers in Creation from examining the facts for themselves. Where those facts lead each person is for each person to decide.

Billions of religious people have absolutely no problem reconciling what science has taught us about the world with their cherished mythologies, religious views, ethics and doctrines. Only illiterate fools who lack the mental ability to process a metaphor, myth or allegory have the problem you describe. Luckily for them, literacy can be learned.

 

[Random]

If evolution were refuted the ideology underlying the foundations of modern capitalism would be refuted with it and the foundations would collapse. Biological evolution, in an emotive sense, is meaningless to an organism that only lives three quarters of a century at most on average, because of the amount of real time evolution takes, but to, say, a banker or any other capitalist it provides the most efficacious rationale for the profit (pro-fit) motive and the preeminence of self-interest in human affairs.

 

[johnhanks]

To believe in Evolution...

Biologists do not 'believe in' evolution in the sense that someone might 'believe in' god or Santa Claus. To 'believe in' something implies an emotional or ideological commitment that is independent of evidence and can even fly in the face of it. Despite your constant assertions to the contrary those who ascribe to the theory of evolution do so because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

... one must deny what the Bible teaches about God, his purposes, about Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, and the hope of everlasting life.

1. I know plenty of Christians who are sure evolution occurred.
2. Hoping for something constitutes very poor grounds for belief.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If evolution was refuted, dna would still continue to be modified over the course of generations through the processes of natural and sexual selection. Any refutation by human beings doesn't change reality.

 

[tarasan]

If evolution was refuted, dna would still continue to be modified over the course of generations through the processes of natural and sexual selection. Any refutation by human beings doesn't change reality.

i dunno it sounds like your claiming evolution is beyond the facts and rationale that we have.

after all im still not sure I believe evolution is true, however I do believe we are on the right track. whatever creationists say we cannot be closed off to the possiblity that new facts might be established or better theories thought up. gotta be open minded you know

 

[outhouse]

i dunno it sounds like your claiming evolution is beyond the facts and rationale that we have.

after all im still not sure I believe evolution is true, however I do believe we are on the right track. whatever creationists say we cannot be closed off to the possiblity that new facts might be established or better theories thought up. gotta be open minded you know

there is no debate that life evolves. None at all.

its fact and scientific theory.



If you do not understand it or have questions its only because of your lack of education on the subject

 

[tarasan]

there is no debate that life evolves. None at all.

its fact and scientific theory.



If you do not understand it or have questions its only because of your lack of education on the subject

well considering he made the cliam "if evolution was refuted," as in hypothetically if it was what we knew as non- fact or non-scientific theory, then i would like to think we would be open to other options.

remember science is always open to being corrected, and if by some fluke evolution was wrong then we should be open to change. if only to shut the Creationist up

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe the weight of evidence is overwhelming against the ToE.

Not really. We frequently observe genetic changes from one generation to the next, and people that have been breeding domestic plants and animals for specific features, at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, have realized that evolution happens. As far as we know biological evolution is irrefutable. You having traits your parents don't is proof of it. As is bacteria becoming resistant and immune to anti-biotics.

 

[painted wolf]

Not really. We frequently observe genetic changes from one generation to the next, and people that have been breeding domestic plants and animals for specific features, at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, have realized that evolution happens. As far as we know biological evolution is irrefutable. You having traits your parents don't is proof of it. As is bacteria becoming resistant and immune to anti-biotics.

I think the evidence overwhelmingly shows that someone doesn't actually care what evolution is or what it means... only that their religious leaders have condemned it, therefore it's evil and incorrect.

wa:do