Quote:
Originally Posted by Eboni Khan  Evolutionists seem to deem creation as completely impossible, but creationist are support to accept evolution. They do seem incompatible of one is treated as completely ridiculous and the people that believe it are bible thumping idiots. |
As an evolutionist I see it a little differently. We are interested exclusively in the evidence and the conclusions we can draw from the evidence. That's it. There is no desire or interest to "disprove" creationism, only a desire to examine those ideas for which evidence exists (which, necessarily, means neglect for those ideas where no evidence exists.)
So what is creationism to do? Well as best I can tell, you have these options:
1. Focus on ways to marry science and creationism. Sooz believes that Evolution is a scientific fact of our natural history ... but she goes on to assert that Evolution is the method by which God created humanity. This is not scientific because it lacks evidence and it's unfalsifiable. But the advantage of being unfalsifiable is that it cannot be disproven. By crediting God for every facet of the natural world that science uncovers, from the big bang to a wonderful sunset, you will never be at risk of running afoul of evidence.
2. Renounce science as a valid or complete method of arriving at any sort of understanding about our natural world. After all, if one evokes "divine intervention" why would the laws of physics apply in any way? The mantra for this one is "There is more to life than your precious evidence." Maybe "evidence" points to Evolution ... but that doesn't have to mean anything important at all.
This idea is internally consistent and impossible to disprove. Like God placing the light from distant galaxies that are light years away from the earth so they are already in transit to reach our eyes within the supposed 10,000 year lifespan of the universe ... the evidence means nothing at all.
This option makes me very uncomfortable, and when it comes to matters of immediate and personal impact, few people of religious faith
actually buy into this. If brought up on murder charges in court, even the most religious defender would insist you "prove it" rather than call upon religious leaders, oracles, mysticism, or faith to determine your guilt. The evidence that you were out of state when the crime was committed is not unimportant, nor should it be in science.
3. Use science to prove creationism. If scientists find evidence to prove evolution, then you can find evidence to prove creationism. The problem is, right from the start we are departing from the scientific method. While science starts with the evidence and then draws the only inevitable conclusion that can be drawn from it, the creationist option starts with the conclusion, then tries very hard to prove it.
This backwards method makes the efforts prone to confirmation bias (cherry picking only the evidence that supports your conclusion while ignoring the rest) and a host of fallacy. Eventually, when evidence fails to materialize, the effort turns to more fallacy by trying to "disprove" or discredit evolution (again, not how science works.)
Options 2 and 3 have been tried. Extensively. They don't work out. The CoE is going with option #1. Given the evidence, it's the most comfortable option.