Thread: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

Originally Posted by sycld

The simple fact is that we don't understand every single detail about natural history or about the mechanism of evolution.

The simple fact is that we don't understand everything about most things. The simple fact is that if we did, scientists wouldn't have much to do, now would they?

Yes, our understanding of evolution is incomplete. Likewise, our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, as it is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. However, I don't see people saying that it is "wrong" like they are saying evolution is wrong.

There is one thing that is correct to say: evolution is the only way that we can even begin to explain all the empirical evidence we've accumulated. We don't understand it completely. We're getting better at understanding how it works.

But a lack of current understanding is not a fundamental "problem" with the theory, as you say it is.

See guys, that is the beautiful thing about science. It is a strength that creationist try to turn into a flaw. Science adapts to new evidence. We achieve new evidence based on new discoveries, or discovering something new due to new technology. Just because something can not be entirely explained at this time does not mean it can not be explained, and must have been a god or deity that did it. If that was the case we still wouldn't know why it rains and where fire comes from. We take evidence and known facts and form a conclusion based on available knowledge. They use this as a flaw, saying we can "change our stance" on things, and that we don't understand everything. True, but that is a strength, scientist take new evidence if it becomes available to form a new hypothesis, if a creationist comes across new evidence they mangle it to fit their conclusion.

Creationist come to a conclusion, and use pseudo-science and false logic to make the evidence "meet" their answer, and not the other way around. Anytime you are trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion, instead of making a conclusion based on the evidence is pure insanity.

The one thing I don't understand is that a lot of religious people are so entrenched in their idea, that they come up with "reasons" why we heathen science based logical people do what we do... anything from being possessed by the devil to living in sin and not wanting to admit it. It's like talking to a wall, or a magic 8-ball, they are unable to accept new information. If scientific evidence truly showed a higher deity, such as the Christian God, that would be the common consensus. They act as if we would turn down eternal bliss if the evidence was there that it existed.

Originally Posted by Syme

So I guess bacon ops missed the fact that the video's main point was explaining why creationism and "intelligent design" are non-scientific and why their proponents arguments for inclusion in science curricula are intellectually dishonest? And instead he thought it was trying to disprove God's existence or something?

EDIT: Bacon ops, if you wander back into this thread, could you please tell us some of the things that are "wrong with the whole evolution thing"?

It's the unfortunate conflation of the support of science and evolution with support of atheism. There is nothing incompatible between evolution and a belief in god any more than there is between a belief in a round earth and a heliocentric solar system and a belief in god.

And given his earlier statements, I'm sure bacon ops would simply cop out by saying he doesn't have a doctorate in biology, so he can't say what's wrong with evolution per se.