I know, I know - 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron; or is it?  I feel like I've been left out of the loop a bit because I just discovered that there really is such a thing as 'creation science'.  I expect a lot of flack for even suggesting such a thing but I should point out that emotional reactions to any suggestion of validity to 'creation science' are really on par with the dogmatic rebuttals of theists.

 

Like all scientists, creation scientists start out with an hypothesis and then go out and test it.  I guess the only difference is that they don't really have hypothesis 'b' (or c,d,e,f...) waiting in the wings like reality scientists.  Where reality science can drop an hypothesis and move on, creation science needs to get more rigorous, to say the least.

 

It seems that creation scientists use classical mutlidimensional scaling to group fossils into baramins - a creationist version of evolutionary taxonomy.  The multidimensional scaling identifies gaps in the fossil record that leave the remaining fossils in 'groups' they call baramins, which they say were created in exactly that form by a god.  Interestingly, this is the most technical definition of a 'god of the gaps' I've ever encountered.

 

So, the topic to discuss here is; 'IF' creation scientists could actually prove their baramin hypothesis AND reality scientists couldn't falsify it, would you be prepared to accept/admit that macro-evolution did NOT actually occur?

Views: 123

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It sounds to me like the epicycles of old to describe the movement of the planets. Scientists of the time tried so hard to make their models work, they would put epicycles within epicycles within epicycles. I can't scoff at them for earnestly trying to prove their views of the world, but we all know they were terrifically wrong. I feel like the same is happening with this. I have to respect those who are sincerely trying to expand the knowledge base in what they feel is the correct direction.

But to answer your question, what choice would we have? I at least claim that if the evidence comes up, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. If I don't, I woud just be a hypocrit.

My views aren't wrong - just in continual need of updating.  I think you are exactly correct with the epicycles analogy, although with all motion being relative, whose to say it's impossible?  ha ha

 

I was just surprised to find that there were creationists who were actually engaging the fossil record rather than ignoring it.

Ok, I should rephrase. I agree with you about my views just needing constant updating. That is actually what I meant, but that's obviously not what I wrote, lol.

It is suprising they are actually engaging with the evidence rather than denying it. Is this not how some people become atheists? By reading the bible that's in front of them? Maybe these scientists will actually SEE what's right in front of them and will understand what it means.

To clarify, I'm not trying to compare a book of mythology to physical fossils. Just trying to say that it sometimes helps for people to see and understand what's in front of them.

Well I looked around at what these guys are doing and was surprised to find they were doing anything at all.  In Atheist circles the concept of 'creation science' seems to be akin to a bunch of philosophers arguing about which type of fairies are the most aerodynamic.  I hadn't even heard of the journals in which they publish their studies or had any concept that they actually did studies.

 

One of the creation scientists mentioned, Ken Wise, has a PhD in Geology from Harvard.  Not all creationists are youtube idiots trying to pose a single question that will unhinge all of science overnight.

Sure, I would accept it, but I still would not believe in God.

This is so completely off topic, but my wife and I just finished watching season 3 and 4 of Meerkat Manor. Haven't seen 1 and 2 yet. Just tickled to see Flower and your moniker. Cheers.
@ Phillip - Ha ha. I can connect with those meerkats. They are scruffy and paranoid, for good reason lol.  
Excellent point, Flower.  Even if macro-evolution could not be established to show a single line for all complex organisms it still wouldn't justify the existence of Santa Claus.  It sure would make for some arrogant creationists though.
Creationists reject global warming?
Heather I don't think they (generally) reject the existence of global warming, they just don't care because they believe it is either: a) part of God's plan, or b) the rapture will occur before it begins to really matter... same with issues like limited natural resources running out: they don't care because their god put it there specifically for them to use.
By that logic, I should be able to get away with kicking them in the crotch and declaring "god's plan - he's a mysterious bugger you know!"
now Heather, we both know that these religious peoples don't follow our logic that well...

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service