Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ronald Pyatt on December 4, 2011 at 11:50pm

I'd encourage it.

This brings up the question of definitions and word usage when discussing alternative "theories", and I don't mean for this to sound pompous. Making sure everyone's on the same page in definitions can save a whole lot of grief.

The word "theory" is often used when someone means an opinion, a train of thought, proposition, or a hypothesis. This is very different than the scientific use of the word "theory".

By your post, I can see that you mean evolutionary theory to be the scientific referencing of facts and the other theory references to mean something like just an opinion. The differences in the two definitions being vastly different meanings can have a huge impact on the discussions with your father. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism has not made it to Theory status and lost its hypothesis status when it failed to prove anything. It should now be considered just an old proposition. Pursuing creationist theories seems rather absurd given how nothing proposed so far justifies such a pursuit or any reason given to believe it's a theory. That's not to say someone cannot take such a route, and taking any personal interest in a quest for your own peace of mind is entirely self justified.

However, repeated testing and being honest with the results is the key to proving or disproving its worthiness for advancement and acceptance in any scientific sense. And from what I know of Creationism, as a repackaged religious proposal, it cannot now (nor has it ever been able to) predict anything about reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on December 5, 2011 at 6:32am

You are frustrated with your dad’s old earth creationist views. My father is also an old earth creationist – devout Catholic.

Do I lose a lick of sleep over his views? Absolutely not. And you shouldn’t either. There is no changing the mind of these people… and yes it is somewhat depressing that these people are in our immediate family. Nevertheless, once you come to accept the fact… the reality…… that these people will never change their beliefs….. The less frustrated you will be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on December 5, 2011 at 8:07am

Evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of understanding. He obvious does not understand Evolution because he has not studied it. If he had done so he would understand it. If he understood it then he would know that it is true. It is a fact in the same sense it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is not disproven because it is misunderstood or not believed. It is not “only a theory”. Other theories are fine as they will only advance and strengthen it. See also Dawkins ideas on “it’s only a Theory” in his book “the Greatest Show on Earth”. Then leave it on the coffee table.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on December 5, 2011 at 9:16am

I think Nelson's answer is a good one.  Of course, academic freedom requires that any scientist be able to investigate any theory or hypothesis he wants, but if he publishes bad ideas without sufficient evidence, then he is not much of a scientist.  That being said, I think there are some ideas that are so obviously wrong that only incredible new evidence would justify examining them, such as, for example, the flat Earth theory.  Young Earth creationism falls in that category as well.  To my mind, any hypothesis that rejects evolution belongs there as well.

I know he is your father, but I no longer debate such people.  In fact, I no longer have contact with them except when it is unavoidable.  Too many bad experiences.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 5, 2011 at 1:02pm

As long as the peers are independent and not intellectually predisposed to align with the so-called discoverer of the "proof."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on December 5, 2011 at 2:54pm

   Creationists are certainly free to come up with scientific theories to support their beliefs.  So why haven't they?  If they want scientists to take them seriously they must present claims that can be tested, experiments that can be replicated, and theories that are capable of falsification. Not only have creationists not proposed anything that could remotely be called theories, but not even any hypotheses.  Speculations and conjectures are about as close as creationists ever come to anything science can examine.  They can't advance beyond that because they have been totally unable to produce anything resembling EVIDENCE.  

   I am often amused by the demand of creationists to be allowed to present their "creation science" alongside the established science in the classroom.  Of what, exactly, would their lessons consist?

Lesson 1: Tell students that "evolution can't be true because I don't understand it."

Lesson 2:  ???

   My proposal:  Allow creationists to have one hour a week giving their evidence in a public school science class.  And allow ME to have one hour a week in Sunday school to present MY evidence.

conclusion:  This is a proposal NO church, synagogue, mosque, or TV religion show would agree to, because they know full well that they would, in the long run, lose in the markteplace of open inquiry.

note:  years ago, when I was teaching an 8th grade physical science class, I had a student tell me about a local creationist who could prove, scientifically, that God exists.  I told her to invite her neighbor to come to my class and say whatever she wished, so long as it was understood that she must submit to questioning, not by me, but by the students afterwards.  She never showed.

   

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page