Creationism: Loudest in the Room or Increasing Extremism?

[horza66]

Apologies for the cross-post from Education, but this is a question more appropriate here:

Originally Posted by horza66

The weird thing for me is the way YEC/ID/Biblical Literalism has taken over as the only form of religion discussed. Back in secondary school we had our mandated Religious Education class, where the various religions were discussed along with creation myths. I was already an atheist by then, and not greatly interested, but it was a balanced view. The teacher was the school Rector, who clearly didn't take the Bible literally, and nor did any Anglicans I encountered subsequently. The Bible, along with other religious texts were intended as some form of moral guidance through parable. That, to me, was religion. A bit wishy washy and well meaning, but essentially harmless. Biblical literalists were weirdos who lived in isolated commmunities.

Nowadays (ahem - get off my lawn) it seems like the weirdos are the only ones shouting. Has there really been a big shift of belief to YEC literalism from moderate interpretive views of the Bible? Are there studies or viable statistics to indicate whether this is just weirdos making noise, or genuine radicalisation?

To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument. Have these extremists managed to make the debate about them? Shouldn't the rational approach be to seek common ground with the moderate religious majority, and push the extremists to the margins where they belong?

[TimCallahan]

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.

[Hux]

I know I am going back 40 odd years - probably longer, but I don't recall ridiculous Knowledge lessons being any more than a confirmation of protestantism. Having said that, literalism was not on the agenda of children then. We were not offered a creationist view of the world but then I don't recall being told anything about evolution in Biology lessons (and this is from the ages between 11 to 17).

Creationism is getting louder for Chrissake. It must be easier to understand stupidity than taking the time to consider something. I don't wish to overemphasise the situation but as far as I understand it, evolution, even now, is not dwelt upon in any great measure, despite it being one of the most powerful and easily accessible ideas in modern times.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.

That would require them to have an actual scientific theory to defend.
Hell; that'd require them to agree with each other!

[negativ]

Speculation:

Many religious people agree with Judge Jones' opinion that ID/Creationism is "breathtaking inanity". A case can be made that, in contrast with evolution, creationism actually denigrates the concept of a creator deity. However, telling the loud fundamentalist minority that their beliefs are stupid is considered intolerant and disrespectful. For non-fundies who are on board with evolution, it's like smiling and nodding at your crazy in-laws at Thanksgiving dinner while cringing on the inside. I think Sam Harris' view is essentially correct; that religious moderates effectively shelter fundamentalists from the normal criticisms we apply to every other form of opinion including politics, art, literature, and what to have for dinner this evening.

I don't think extremism is increasing. I think it's just getting louder lately, and while I don't want to hijack this into a political discussion, I think it has more than a little to do with the reactions to the 2008 US presidential election.

Of course, this is all just the ravings of a madman. I'm usually wrong about everything else.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Simon39759

That would require them to have an actual scientific theory to defend.
Hell; that'd require them to agree with each other!

My point precisely.

[Hux]

I have heard it said many times (including Sam Harris) that loud fundamentalism, if not fundamentalism itself, is a pathetic response to the rise of secularism and reason. If that is true then all we have to do is ride out their death throes.

I cannot see fundies going away any time soon but of course, stupid is no way to go through life.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by horza66

To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument. Have these extremists managed to make the debate about them? Shouldn't the rational approach be to seek common ground with the moderate religious majority, and push the extremists to the margins where they belong?

Increasing extremism. The ones who AREN'T extreme have long since converted. Therefore, to cover for this "moral backsliding", the remaining extremists have become increasingly vocal.
But yes, it would be logical to take the fight to creationism. But there's still the old prejudice remaining - namely that which states that religious claims have a special basis. You aren't ALLOWED to attack creationism on scientific grounds. Any time you try, you get shouted down. So even though it's logical, it isn't going to happen.

[Hux]

How can you seek a common ground with a moderate? Either they believe this tripe or they do not. It is for the moderate, who has some tenuous hold on reality, to challenge the extremists. They cannot be charged with ulterior motives. but in the end, even if we eradicated fundamentalism and even extremism, we would still be left with a core belief of ignorance which education finds difficult to undermine.

It is easier to attack creationism in the UK than the US. but the main strategy seems to have been that , in creationism, there is nothing there to attack.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.

Uh...there is no debate whatsoever about evolution.

[Hux]

Creationism, as a hypothesis, was duly considered at one time. This is why we can safely dismiss it as rubbish. ANything is worthy of hypothesis but science has shown there is no debate worthy. its been done to death. its up to us and the scientific community to be more aggresive towards ignorance, not encourage it.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

Creationism, as a hypothesis, was duly considered at one time. This is why we can safely dismiss it as rubbish. ANything is worthy of hypothesis but science has shown there is no debate worthy. its been done to death. its up to us and the scientific community to be more aggresive towards ignorance, not encourage it.

Creationism is magic not science. Never has been science and never will be science.

[Hux]

Nevertheless it had to be considered hypothetically. How else could science ever dismiss it? Even the blessed Dawkins states that.

I am not suggesting creationism is anything other than woo, nor do I think it deserves debate. But there had to be a basis to refute it entirely.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

Nevertheless it had to be considered hypothetically. How else could science ever dismiss it? Even the blessed Dawkins states that.

I am not suggesting creationism is anything other than woo, nor do I think it deserves debate. But there had to be a basis to refute it entirely.

When creation can show a way it can be falsified and that it makes any testable predictions, then science has a need to refute it. That hasn't happened yet nor will it ever.

[Hux]

But it has been considered. Not greatly I grant you. Science is a process. How else but by scientific reason, can we rebutt it?

Of course creationism is an empty vessel that cannot be falsified; its very claims are ridiculous.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

But it has been considered. Not greatly I grant you. Science is a process. How else but by scientific reason, can we rebutt it?

Of course creationism is an empty vessel that cannot be falsified; its very claims are ridiculous.

If it is an empty vessel that can't be falsified, what is the necessity for science to rebut it when it claims itself that it isn't scientific?

[Hux]

I am not claiming science has to do anything more. I am stating scientific process exposed creationism for what it is.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

I am not claiming science has to do anything more. I am stating scientific process exposed creationism for what it is.

Correct yet it was not necessary since creation itself shows that it is unfalsifiable and not scientific.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

When creation can show a way it can be falsified and that it makes any testable predictions, then science has a need to refute it. That hasn't happened yet nor will it ever.

Certain claims of creationism, flood geology comes to mind, can be and have been falsified. Of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to rescue it with "but maybe a few miracles happened during the flood" which can't be falsified, but many creationist claims can actually be falsified.

The flood created the Grand Canyon, Ken Hovinds incredibly stupid "the poles came from a frozen comet" theory can be refuted.

[Hux]

Let me put it another way.

Some idiot claims the Earth was made around about the time the Sumerians were brewing Beer. In an ideal world we just ignore it. But we point out, historically, Archaeologically and radio metrically they are wrong. These are all scientific process. I do not claim we did these things to rebut the emptiness that is creationism. However, even Ken Miller had to bring scientific knowledge to rebut the madness of Behe and his ID'ers. Somewhere along the line, a scientist had to take Creationism as a proposition in order to rebut it. Nothing at all wrong with that but there is no reason to suppose we should continue to do so. Even Darwin had to take his prevalent world view into consideration before he discovered the essential truth.

Im afraid all this is entirely necessary. Even now. Simple dismissal of a stupid idea just gives these pricks the idea that they might be onto something.

[Hux]

I cannot think of any portion of creationism that cannot be, in any essence, discarded.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Certain claims of creationism, flood geology comes to mind, can be and have been falsified. Of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to rescue it with "but maybe a few miracles happened during the flood" which can't be falsified, but many creationist claims can actually be falsified.

The flood created the Grand Canyon, Ken Hovinds incredibly stupid "the poles came from a frozen comet" theory can be refuted.

Creationism can not be falsified. Sure parts of creationism can be falsified yet creotards just claim god created things to appear as they are. I have even heard a creotard claim that Miller and Urey 'proved' creation takes intelligence...talk about being deluded. Debating creotards and their magical myth of creation is unnecessary and futile.

[Hux]

You should see what they say about Ardi on 'Rapture ready" and sites like it. These are twisted, sad and pathetic human beings.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

Simple dismissal of a stupid idea just gives these pricks the idea that they might be onto something.

Not entirely true. Of course the creotards and IDiots will spin it to mean that but that is not at all what it means. Look up Joe Newman and his energy machine, look up the challenge he made for any PhD to debate him. read why they didn't and you will understand why debating magic is unnecessary and futile. A debate tends to elevate both sides to an intellectually equal level. If you really think that creation ever deserved that...

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

You should see what they say about Ardi on 'Rapture ready" and sites like it. These are twisted, sad and pathetic human beings.

Exactly why they are referred to as IDiots and creotards.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Not entirely true. Of course the creotards and IDiots will spin it to mean that but that is not at all what it means. Look up Joe Newman and his energy machine, look up the challenge he made for any PhD to debate him. read why they didn't and you will understand why debating magic is unnecessary and futile. A debate tends to elevate both sides to an intellectually equal level. If you really think that creation ever deserved that...

I have never made such a claim. We need not debate anyone. But we do - big style. The fact of the matter is that a Geologist refuted the notion that the Grand canyon sprang up on 40 days. That is rebuttal enough. But if science had not given some consideration - in the PAST - to some of the claims of creationism, we would not be in any postion to laugh it off. Its not enough, certainly to the creationists, to simply state they are feckwits. We have had to demonstrate it. You cannot do that without consideration of the claim.

I am not, and have not said that I advocate debating creationists on the basis of their current claims. I am stating that science has successfully thrown out all their claims but to do so they had to do more than simply bellow it from the rooftops. How else can science (Knowledge) progress?

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

I have never made such a claim. We need not debate anyone. But we do - big style. The fact of the matter is that a Geologist refuted the notion that the Grand canyon sprang up on 40 days. That is rebuttal enough. But if science had not given some consideration - in the PAST - to some of the claims of creationism, we would not be in any postion to laugh it off. Its not enough, certainly to the creationists, to simply state they are feckwits. We have had to demonstrate it. You cannot do that without consideration of the claim.

I am not, and have not said that I advocate debating creationists on the basis of their current claims. I am stating that science has successfully thrown out all their claims but to do so they had to do more than simply bellow it from the rooftops. How else can science (Knowledge) progress?

Let me ask it a different way since you apparently didn't quite understand what i meant about Joe Newman. If science never refuted any aspect of creationism but totally ignored it, would it be a scientific theory? If not, how could science ever debating it be necessary?

ETA - the creotards and IDiots do enough damage to their own claims if left alone.

[Hux]

Nope it wouldn't be a theory. Never did claim that. But how then does science consider something worthy of consideration without somehow, at some stage, considering the principle?

Of course its not a theory. never was, never will be. And we have science to thank for that statement. Not just simple ridicule.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

Nope it wouldn't be a theory. never did claim that.

Then there was no need for science to ever waste time and energy addressing it.

[Hux]

History shows us that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that it did.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Hux

History shows us that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that it did.

Yes science did yet it was unnecessary. How many advances in science were either never made or delayed because science was busy debating creotards and IDiots unnecessarily?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by horza66

The weird thing for me is the way YEC/ID/Biblical Literalism has taken over as the only form of religion discussed

Where is this????

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by negativ

I don't think extremism is increasing. I think it's just getting louder lately, and while I don't want to hijack this into a political discussion, I think it has more than a little to do with the reactions to the 2008 US presidential election.

You may be right, but I don't think the US pres elections are that important to the volume. This Fundy vs other PoV bitter fight has gone on for five straight administrations that I have been aware of. What has differed is in how much play the media give it, and in the past decade, how much play the internet gives it.

DR

[steve s]

Originally Posted by horza66

To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument.

I disagree that it's a waste of time. Years ago the creationists wouldn't allow for any amount of evolutionary change. Now, most of them will admit that some amount of evolution occurs (microevolution as they call it) but that this evolution is being guided by an intelligent designer.

When confronted with fossils of whales with hind flippers and dinosaurs with feathers, I've had a few creationists admit that other animals may have evolved into new species, but that humans have always had the same form. We are gradually winning the war.

Steve S.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by steve s

I disagree that it's a waste of time. Years ago the creationists wouldn't allow for any amount of evolutionary change. Now, most of them will admit that some amount of evolution occurs (microevolution as they call it) but that this evolution is being guided by an intelligent designer.

When confronted with fossils of whales with hind flippers and dinosaurs with feathers, I've had a few creationists admit that other animals may have evolved into new species, but that humans have always had the same form. We are gradually winning the war.

Steve S.

Steve you would not think that if you had some of the conversations I have recently had. The creationist just puts his fingers in ears and goes LALALALA I cant hear you!

I have been lectured on the nature of the fossil record, the 'fact' that Cetacians arrived fully aquatic, that genetic information gets lost(without being to explain if that makes any difference) where are the transitional creatures?, how human population growth confirms the Earth is only 6,000 years old yada yadda yadda. I've even been told Evolution is a faith.

I'm willing to bet there's not a person here who hasn't had the same experience with these Cretins. I don't think we are 'winning' at all.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Yes science did yet it was unnecessary. How many advances in science were either never made or delayed because science was busy debating creotards and IDiots unnecessarily?

Not many I would imagine. Its not as if the entire scientific community was exercised by it.

[hereisjoe]

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.
2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.
3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.
4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?
5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.
6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.
7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

[Glockjaw]

Originally Posted by hereisjoe

7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

If creationism had validity, science would be inadvertently proving it. However, this is not the case. Science leads us to a more complex answer than goddidit.

So yes, no one is going to take those baseless goddidit claims as having validity. Its a mockery of our ability to utilize knowledge. The creationist is overlooking hard evidence to go with 'faith'.

And why shouldn't we paint all creationists under the same brush? If the question is how you believe existence started, they all have the same answer and thus have the same view. goddidit.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by hereisjoe

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.

Well, they don't, most of the time. If not they would know that both ID and creationism, being unfalsifiable, can not be evaluated through the scientific method.

Quote:

2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.

It is, indeed, unrelated.
although, because we don't have any existence of God, any working hypothesis that do not require God will automatically be more parsimonious an explanation that one that does, and hence, preferred in term of logic and science.

Quote:

3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.

Well; I am not aware of any scientific evidence ever produced by Creationist, so the point is a bit moot.

By the way, I discovered the Higs bozon. It was in my back pocket all along, now shut up and give me my Nobel prize already...
Of course, a good scientific evidence should be able to be examined by knowledgeable specialist before being admitted.

Quote:

4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?

Yes, really.
Can you look back at your first point? See how this could explain it?

By the way, we don't know what came before the Big-bang, there is not even a reason to believe that there was a 'before the Big-bang'.

Quote:

5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.

Ironic coming from a creationist. I remember, in the last podcast of the Skeptic zone, somebody checking a creationist pamphlet and realizing that 90% of the reference were, indeed, twisted and out of context quotes.

Here is the thing, though, 99.9% of the Biologist ARE "evolutionists" (personally, I am a gravito-germaist, if you are going to define me with what universally accepted scientific theory I accept, why not the theory of gravity and the germ theory?).
When bioligist quote somebody, it is almost always a peer-biologist...hence, most likely a fellow "Evolutionist" (and gravito-germaist). So, where is the need to twist his sentence coming from? That does not make sense!

Quote:

6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.

There is no "proof" in science (see point 1) there is only evidences compatible with a theory (but always open to re-interpretation as more evidences come to light) or evidences disproving it.
The fossil record is only a few thousand of independent facts that happened to fit perfectly within the framework of the theory of Evolution's predictions.
If you are afraid of bones (that's what she said); there is always the molecular evidences. I like the Endogenous Retroviruses and Chromosome 2 fusion most, personally.

Quote:

7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

Indeed, not all creationists belong to the same group. Hell, the different creationists are just as incompatible with each other thant they are with evolution.
In more than 30 years of existence 'scientific' creationism has unable to produce a coherent scenario, let alone a scientific hypothesis, not to mention a testable theory.

Now, are the creationists crazy? Well, they do reject a vast amount of evidences that they happen not to like.
If a friend of mine was arguing that I flew through his window, even after being repeated and shown how me climbing his stairs are actually a much more likely scenario, even showing him my muddy footprints on most of the steps, I would indeed start to think that there is something wrong with him. He might not be 'crazy' but there is definitively something impairing his reasoning process.

Quote:

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

A little bit of training and you could apply for the MDC... Sadly, I did use a tiny bit of science.
I could have used more, but you don't use any yourself, so I am not sure it would be appropriate. It's like, I have this friend which is a really hot stripper, you know, but because the party is a kinder-gardener's birthday, I am not sure it would be appropriate to bring her. It would probably not be very appropriate. Also, my friend would likely got bored, and the cake is too small, anyway.

Your problem is more basic than science. It seems to me that you have a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself, which help explain your first point.
You know, if most 'evolutionists' you talk to mention your lack of understanding of science, to the point that it is the first thing that comes to your mind when you start complaining about them... There is a non-zero chance that, indeed, you do not understand the scientific method. Here is a short premium.

-Observe the world, each individual observation constitute a "fact".
-For example, an organism acquires a new characteristic, such as a bacterium developing a resistance to an antibiotic or learning how to digest a new substance, Nylon, let's say, or citric acid in the Lenski experiment.

-If all the facts fit a pattern, you can expect that all future facts you collect will fit the same pattern. Congratulation, you got yourself a "scientific law".
For example: the fossils record seem ordered into a gradual pattern. A species, within the statigraphic column, is surrounded by slightly different organisms, with the organism in the middle having an intermediate form between the two organism surrounding it. Constituting an intermediate morphological step between the two organisms.
Or, another exaple: organisms subjected to a given pressure or an alternative opportunity within their environment, will adapt to this pressure. Bacteria will "learn" how to resist to antibiotics or develop new pathways to take opportunity that were not previously available.

-Sometime, you won't have an explanation for a given scientific law. Sometime, it is not even certain that there is any reason, it is just the way Nature works (for example, the Laws of thermodynamics).
Other time, you will have an explanation to explain this scientific law, this explanation is a nascent 'scientific theory.
For example, this adaptation occurs because of the mutations we have observed (another observed fact). The mutations that give a competitive advantage are selected for, allowing the individual harboring them to become the rule (theory of natural selection and descent with mutation).

-Of course, it is always possible for any given explanation to get a new explanation that work equally well. In this case, the explanation that make the less new assumption (aka the most parsimonious one) should win.
For example, "the less fit organisms tend to be replaced but not because they will be out-bred, but because time travelling hunters are lazy" would also work, but is less parsimonious as we have no reason believe that time travelling hunters exist.
Similarly, "Natural selection does not work for macroevolution and God created everything, including a number of species (or fossils) that just happen to look exactly what all these transitional species would look like". Is much less parsimonious, it requires the existence of God, his interest in creating the whole she-bang and the amazing coincidence of creating a bunch of extinct species just where the gaps would be. So, all evidences being equal; creationist (or ID) would make a poorer scientific theory than the theory of evolution, but, that's not a problem, as you will see in the next point .

-Now that we have a theory (or a law), we can use them to make predictions to test it. It's a tough test, because, no matter how many facts you have, just one observation that would be incompatible with the theory would falsify it.
For example [i]if the theory of evolution was correct, there should be transitional species between the current species and between the fossils. Not all of them might fossilize but there should still be plenty of them. For example, there should be a fish-tetrapod transitional organism within the devonian layers. check
Moreover, when lacking, the gaps themselves within the fossil record should be compatible with what we know of fossilization. There should be among the older and less fossilisable organisms. It wouldn't make sense to have a highly detailed record of Cambrian works and not find any transitional species within the equine fossil record check.
Another example: if the theory of evolution was correct, a change in the environment, for example, the darkening of the landscape with soot during the industrial revolution, should lead to a difference in populations (the moths would become darker).Check.
Another example: if descent with modification was true, random individual incidents that left a mark in one organism genomic material, would leave marks in both descendant. For example, a retrovirus infecting the germ cells of a common ancestor of chimp and human would leave the same ERV in both genomes check.
Similarly if common ancestry was true, any difference could be traced back to a mutation. For example, the difference in chromosome numbers in chimp and humans could be traced back to a given mutation check.


And that's only a few, a tiny bit of the layer of frost forming from the morning dew at the top of the gigantonormous iceberg of evidences that support the theory of evolution.
Thousand upon thousand of individual facts that all are compatible with the theory and not a single onethat isn't.

by the way this is the reason why science does not have "proofs". Or that it is just the "theory" of evolution. Because one can never decide that a fact is not on its way to show up and disprove a theory.
Established theories are well explanations for a wide body of evidences that has been tested by a large number of observations and has yet to be refuted. They are the highest level of confidence science can ever achieve for an explanation.



In contrast Creationism and ID make what testable hypothesis?
None, ziltch, nada.
Light coming from more than 6000 years away? -> God created it 'en route'.
Civilization leaving through the global flood and not noticing it? -> They lie (I guess).
ERV? -> God put them here, we just don't know for what purpose...

And so on, and so on. God is infinite, he can do anything, therefore, by definition, not test can ever prove he did not do something. Hence, any 'theory" involving God can not, by definition, be tested through the scientific method and is, hence, not scientific.

[m_huber]

Originally Posted by hereisjoe

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the argument can be discarded without further review. I have not seen any of your other posts, but you seem to be advocating some form of creationism. There are basically three varieties of creationism: YEC, old earth creationism, and intelligent design.

YEC usually calls for a global flood and the age of the earth being under 10,000 years. This can be shown to be false by the lack of any physical evidence for a flood, evidence for processes taking place over long periods of time (such as coral reefs preserved in limestone that would take thousands of years to develop, and then another coral reef stacked directly on top of it in another layer of limestone), and any dating method, including all radioisotope methods, dendrochronology (tree-ring dating), and ice core dating.

Old earth creationism often claims that the earth is old, but that evolution doesn't happen (or that we don't understand it), possibly because of multiple destruction-creation events in the history of time. While this is harder to discount, it can be put aside by comparing the background extinction rate of organisms to mass extinctions. Because of the "normal" rate of organisms going extinct and organisms appearing in geologic time, there is no reason to think that special creation is needed after each mass extinction.

Intelligent design is the hardest to discount, because it makes the weakest claim. All ID claims is that god guides evolution/god made life. The reason this isn't accepted as science is because it adds nothing to scientific understanding, but it adds an extra step that has no real evidence except that it serves as a sort of "god of the gaps" type idea. It is fine philosophically, but it doesn't do anything for the benefit of science.

If your beliefs differ from the categories described, please expand on them.