Now you are making yourself sound stupid. Creationism was science until Darwin. It is the evolutionists that ahve set out to prove creationism wrong. THEY HAVE YET TO DO IT!!! Evolutionist claim to prove evolution but they can not disprove creation. Therefore how can Creationism be a movement to counter the effects of evolution??
14 comments
"Creationism was science until Darwin. It is the evolutionists that ahve set out to prove creationism wrong."
Actually, creation was the *assumption* held by most scientists until they began doing the actual science on the age of the earth, origin of species, etc. The nearly immediate result of the investigation was that they had to give up creationism. In a testament to the good character possessed by the people of that age, those scientists (for the most part) were able to make this change without going into denial.
You're absolutely right. The original explanations for many scientific discoveries were Biblical. Dinosaur fossils were once thought to be the bones of nephilim. It might have stayed that way except that we just kept finding more, and more, and more, and the bible just couldn't account for it anymore.
It wasn't science before Darwin came along, it was still a religious belief. The difference is that after Darwin, creationism turned into a fringe belief upheld by stupidity, ignorance, deceit and conspiracy theories.
Often, someone will present an idea and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality, which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea, in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real. Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the existence of which cannot be disproved.
Indeed, if one is making an exceptionally bold claim (such as with an all-powerful creator) then exceptional evidence is expected in its support. Or as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
"Burden of proof" is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is EXPERIMENTAL OR EMPIRICAL DATA.
ONCE SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match.
Denialists of evolution have a habit of merely ignoring evidence and claiming that the burden of proof still rests with the proponents of those concepts. Debates frequently descend into arguments about which side the burden of proof lies with.
Present the evidence for creationism. Prove 'god' exists. An ancient book and 'goddidit' aren't evidence.
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.
The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up.
Now let me guess what's next. 'See, evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life. Therefore any crap I want to propose must be the only answer'.
You cannot disprove something that has no attachment to reality in the first place.
How can creationism be an anti-evolution, and thereby anti-science, movement? By pushing bullshit legislation to allow "alternative theories" on the origin of the universe. Except brainless guesses don't count as theories.
One thing that always annoys me to no end is how virtually all.(noncrestionist) mainstream science is gets badically shoehorned under the fundie banner of "Darwinism" and/or "evolutionism". This can result in situations like the case of one person I talked to that thought that Charles Darwin came up.with the Big Bang, plate tectonics, stellar evolution, abiogenesis, and just about everything else YECs disagree with in the 19th century and we all just blindly accept it. She basically inferred/assumed this from the ideas of the likes of Gish and Hovind.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
