[THOUGHT EXPERIMENT] One day, evolution is proven false: then what happens?

[Breathe]

Do you foresee society coming to grips with the obsolescence of widely held, foundational belief? I do, but i think this will be very different in character than something like evolution - with very different consequences.

I don't forsee it, but I expect it could happen with something, just not with evolution.

Okay, I'll, bite.

Thank you, Skwim, for answering.

It would depend on the nature of evidence.

Since that wasn't actually mentioned by the fundie, it wasn't that something else was proven over evolution, just that evolution was disproved: iow, in this impossible scenario, there was nothing to say what happened, only what didn't.

 

[Draka]

I don't forsee it, but I expect it could happen with something, just not with evolution.


Thank you, Skwim, for answering.


Since that wasn't actually mentioned by the fundie, it wasn't that something else was proven over evolution, just that evolution was disproved: iow, in this impossible scenario, there was nothing to say what happened, only what didn't.

The only way to disprove something with so much evidence behind it would be for new evidence to come about which proves something else counter to what we had deduced from the old evidence. Something else would have to be at least hinted at with evidence to the contrary of evolution. At this stage, with as much as we have proving evolution, in order to falsify it, nothing short of hard evidence in favor of something else entirely would even cast any doubt upon it.

So, this whole "thought experiment" was at the prodding of a fundie? Was it at least turned around back at him? I tend to find they are the ones who are the least willing to imagine for just one moment that they could be wrong. For them to have to think what they would do should they have to deal with their belief structure not being built upon the literalness they think it is.

 

[Breathe]

So, this whole "thought experiment" was at the prodding of a fundie?

Sort of, but not exactly: they got me wondering more about the implications behind this happening, when the discussion was more an ordinary creationist one.

Was it at least turned around back at him? I tend to find they are the ones who are the least willing to imagine for just one moment that they could be wrong. For them to have to think what they would do should they have to deal with their belief structure not being built upon the literalness they think it is.

Of course; I gave him a fair bit of hassle.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

"One day, evolution is proven false: then what happens?"


We could come up with some other theory. We'd call it "Inane Disorganization” but really it’ll just be the same as evolution with a few buzzwords changed. The Christian's would never sink to that level so they won't believe we would either, nobody will ever notice.

 

[fantome profane]

"One day, evolution is proven false: then what happens?"


We could come up with some other theory. We'd call it "Inane Disorganization” but really it’ll just be the same as evolution with a few buzzwords changed. The Christian's would never sink to that level so they won't believe we would either, nobody will ever notice.

Good idea. But I think we should call it "Incremental Developmentism". Or just I.D. for short.

 

[NIX]

TBH it wouldn't effect me personally at all. I'm sure the people around me, particularly those invested in science or religion would be in a 'reactionary' mode, but beyond the people around me, it wouldn't effect my life or my being at all. ie, it would be no more than a *blip* in my 'curiousity' meter (as in- 'things keep getting curiouser and curiouser'). If scientists one day came to the conclusion that the Universe at large is a Giant Rabbit Hole, I would be right at home with that.

 

[Infinitum]

Threadhopping, sorry.

I think it many creationists would make a lot of noise about it, but I doubt many scientifically literate people would fall into despair for it. We've rewritten our understanding of physics over and over again, when we find more facts and develop new theories to explain these. The facts will still be there, whatever they are. If much of the research would turn up to be a hoax, that would be a totally different thing. I doubt people would take that so well. It's the only thing I can come up with that would actually shake things up for real.

 

[1137]

The universe implodes on itself because everyone (or the one that matters) realizes that this reality is obviously a lie .

 

[painted wolf]

From a purely thought experiment level...

We would be in a lot of trouble. Not only would our understanding of just about every aspect of biology be damaged to the point of uselessness, but a large part of modern medicine and food production would be as well.

We use evolutionary theory in our production of food animals and crops... in how we fight crop pests and how we prevent parasites and illness in our herd animals. We would have to figure out how all those things function from the ground up again.

Medicine would be broken... how and why do bacteria and viruses change in response to our treatments? (if they aren't evolving then what is going on and how can we ever hope to keep ahead of them? We use evolution to model the next flu epidemic and produce vaccines in time for flu season. Without evolution we could only be reactionary and never preemptive.)

Why do some diseases strike certain populations or families more than others? (Genetics is evolution so our whole understanding of the genetic basis of diseases would be out the window!)

Why would some medicines work? We now use evolutionary modeling to predict what kinds of medically useful compounds will be found where and what they will treat.

Testing using animal models would be totally out the window, so what would we do instead?

How would we manage our fisheries and wild animals to prevent extinctions? In this non-evolutionary world can you really rebuild a species from two individuals?

The world becomes a much more chaotic and dangerous place.

wa:do

 

[Breathe]

From a purely thought experiment level...

[...]

The world becomes a much more chaotic and dangerous place.

wa:do

Thank you.

That sounds more or less the same as what I'd expect to happen. That and biologists and physicists getting a headache trying to figure out why it looked like evolution happened but it didn't.

 

[idav]

That and biologists and physicists getting a headache trying to figure out why it looked like evolution happened but it didn't.

It's cause God observed us into existence roughly 8000 years ago and the past went retroactive according to current imagined conditions. Thats just how it works.

 

[siweLSC]

From a purely thought experiment level...

We would be in a lot of trouble. Not only would our understanding of just about every aspect of biology be damaged to the point of uselessness, but a large part of modern medicine and food production would be as well.

We use evolutionary theory in our production of food animals and crops... in how we fight crop pests and how we prevent parasites and illness in our herd animals. We would have to figure out how all those things function from the ground up again.

Medicine would be broken... how and why do bacteria and viruses change in response to our treatments? (if they aren't evolving then what is going on and how can we ever hope to keep ahead of them? We use evolution to model the next flu epidemic and produce vaccines in time for flu season. Without evolution we could only be reactionary and never preemptive.)

Why do some diseases strike certain populations or families more than others? (Genetics is evolution so our whole understanding of the genetic basis of diseases would be out the window!)

Why would some medicines work? We now use evolutionary modeling to predict what kinds of medically useful compounds will be found where and what they will treat.

Testing using animal models would be totally out the window, so what would we do instead?

How would we manage our fisheries and wild animals to prevent extinctions? In this non-evolutionary world can you really rebuild a species from two individuals?

The world becomes a much more chaotic and dangerous place.

wa:do

My take as a biblical creationist:
I don't think medicine, animal models, genetics or anything else would go out the window. Everything like that would still work fine, and the only fields that would be mucked up would be secular archeology and secular paleontology.

 

[Sunstone]

My take as a biblical creationist:
I don't think medicine, animal models, genetics or anything else would go out the window. Everything like that would still work fine, and the only fields that would be mucked up would be secular archeology and secular paleontology.

Do you believe that simply because you're a biblical creationist, or do you have actual reasons why you believe that?

 

[McBell]

One day, evolution is proven false: then what happens?

Creationists change the word "Evolution" to whatever the new theory is called in all the anti-evolution propaganda and the world goes on just like it does now.

 

[siweLSC]

Do you believe that simply because you're a biblical creationist, or do you have actual reasons why you believe that?

Like people keep saying, what exactly would happen would depend on the nature of the evidence against it, and the reason I believe that is because of the nature of the evidence against it.
All biblical creationists with their head screwed on believe in genetics + time, speciation, natural selection. They don't believe these mechanisms are capable of giving rise to the diversity of life we see today.
Basically this would mean that we would use exactly the same expalations of how pathogens become antibiotic resistant, and so on.

 

[painted wolf]

Like people keep saying, what exactly would happen would depend on the nature of the evidence against it, and the reason I believe that is because of the nature of the evidence against it.
All biblical creationists with their head screwed on believe in genetics + time, speciation, natural selection. They don't believe these mechanisms are capable of giving rise to the diversity of life we see today.
Basically this would mean that we would use exactly the same expalations of how pathogens become antibiotic resistant, and so on.

So you accept evolution happens.... you just don't accept evolution is real.

Or you believe evolution happens... you just don't believe in evolution

.... or something like that?

wa:do

 

[Tiberius]

Note: Thought experiment. I know it's impossible.​

Note: This thread isn't for proofs; I already accept evolution, and I think those who have any clue about what evolution teaches do, as well.

My question is about what would happen afterwards after something so well known, researched, and documented.

What this thread IS: a thought experiment of what would happen if something well known, documented, and proven would have if it was suddenly turned on its head.
What this thread IS NOT: denying evolution, a place to bash religions.​

So, we wake up exactly this day next month. It turns out over the last month, doubts were raised about the validity of evolution that was all hush hush, and now it has been disproven. Even the proofs of evolution have somehow been disproven. We can't believe it. Almost nobody can.

So, in this impossible world...​

What would this do to science?
How far would it throw back our knowledge, and what fields would be hit hardest?
What would happen to those who specialized in these fields?

Would people's trust in science take a knocking while the fundamentalists revel in it, and use it as evidence for creationism, or do the public understand and continue to trust people?

What would people use to try to understand our origins besides evolution? Because I can't think of anything credible; or would this just become a worthless question for most people because of a lack of convincing evidence without evolution?

Of course, we know it's impossible. Humour me. Any "that's impossible" or "evolution is a lie" means you haven't the OP and aren't worth a response by anyone.

Somehow, though, I see all this being all ignored and I expect something like "you're an idiot, disproving evolution is impossible" to crop up. That's why I repeated myself a lot, and used font styles, because people skim read.



I imagine people would go to alien creationism, and people's views on science and scientists would take a knocking for at least a decade. Otherwise, I have no idea.

Right, now let's see how this goes before someone doesn't read the opening. :cover:

If this happened, we would need to come up with an alternative explanation. It would also be required for this new theory to explain why the evidence had previously appeared to fit evolution.

 

[atDissenter]

What would happen if Evolution was suddenly proven false? Well, first, believers are a bit too soft on their own claims and then give no real alternatives that could possibly make evolution false.

However, as a thought experiment, I'll play a little bit.

If evolution were suddenly toppled, at the same time, every known rule and law of physics that guides the universe would be found not to work. As a consequence, the universe would cease to exist.

 

[atDissenter]

My take as a biblical creationist:
I don't think medicine, animal models, genetics or anything else would go out the window. Everything like that would still work fine, and the only fields that would be mucked up would be secular archeology and secular paleontology.

This reads as though the natural laws are out of synch but only on things that are inconvenient for a belief in a literal bible? I can only imagine the sort of belief that is needed. It would seem, as long as one gets to keep all the "good stuff" that science has given us, and discard all that inconvenient stuff, that doesn't seem to be a very sound position to hold.

Archeology and Paleontology are not isolated fields. If one discards these two fields, ALL scientific fields crumble because they are inter-linked. Evolution is proven by genetics. Evolution is proven by medicine, geology, physics... If one discards these two, they all must go.

As long as the believer can "pick and choose" the sort of science that doesn't contradict their version of the god in the scripture, the science is acceptable. Conveniently, this tactic is also used in their process of selecting the sort of god they want to believe in; it's no surprise that it's done with their "science." Does anyone really like the wrathful, violent, slave-owning supporter and women hater that's in the Hebrew Scriptures? It is often used to bash some minority group. "In the bible, it says..."

 

[siweLSC]

So you accept evolution happens.... you just don't accept evolution is real.

Or you believe evolution happens... you just don't believe in evolution

.... or something like that?

wa:do

Basically yes, it totally depends on your definition of evolution. Creationists do believe in natural selection and speciation, and that is the conventional definition of evolution, but just not common decent.