Caliann the Elf <calianng_graves at yahoo.com> writes: > David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > > Please note that the last, about evolution, was a quote. It was > > also mentioned that Jastrow said that because AT THE TIME, there was > > not enough evidence to support the theory. > > What evidence was there for creationism? The fossil evidence, at > least, was known from *very* early in the history of the idea of > evolution (which, remember, goes back well before Darwin; the idea > was around for a long time before he assembled all that evidence for > it). > > ******************************************************************************************* > > <chuckles> Jump Jastrow's case for the quote, hon, I just repeated it.:) > > > > You're misunderstanding scientific terminology. Evolution will always > and forever be a theory. Science doesn't prove things; it *dis*proves > things. A theory that's compatible with the known facts stays around, > because it doesn't get disproved. Or stays around for use in special > cases where it's adequately precise, the way Newtonian mechanics does, > even though we *know* it's wrong in general. > > ************************************************************************************** > > In that, science hasn't disproved creationism. So can I talk about the theory of Creationism? Depends on *which* thing put forward as the "creationist hypothesis" you want to talk about. Some of them are non-testable (non-disprovable), so they don't qualify as a valid scientific hypothesis at all. The others don't explain the data very well, so aren't considered seriously by scientists. > Meanwhile, the theory of evolution is the foundation of pretty much > everything in biology; you can't do much of anything in modern biology > without it. > > **************************************************************************************** > > I know four Creationist biological researchers. You don't need to > believe in evolution to understand and do WELL in biology. Most > biologists aren't interested in how it arrived on this planet, but > with how it works and how it can do better. That whole business of classifying and grouping all the plants and animals is based on evolution. And all the interest in molecular biology is based on the ability to change a creature by changing its genes, that is to say, the basis underlying much of evolution. > Anybody who's done selective breeding has reproduced evolution in it's > simplest form. > > ******************************************************************************************** > > Selective breeding is NOT evolution. You can breed both a daschund > and a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. They are not going to > change into, say, cats...or even coyotes, any million years soon. Unfounded assertion, there. Why are you so sure? > Besides, the fossil record is still VERY far from complete and still > missing those oh-so-necessary transitional fossils. Even the poor > horse, most noted of the evolutionary findings, has been blown out > of the water when it was discovered that Eohippus is not extinct at > all, nor the ancestor of our horses, but it alive and well in the > brushlands of Africa. There are loads of transitional fossils; the gradual transformations are completely obvious. > There's no credible alternative to evolution out there. Most of the > alleged "creationist" theories are non-falsifiable, so they're not > scientific theories at all, let alone ones with any adherants. > > ***************************************************************************************** > > Okay, I'll buy that. One must be able to prove or disprove God > before one can prove or disprove creationism. That's not the point. God has been reduce to a non-disprovable concept (i.e. non-scientific) for a very long time. Some of the creationists, though, are attempting to form actual scientific hypotheses; they just aren't very successful at it. > Can we call it a draw? I will need proof to believe in evolution, > you will need proof to believe in creationism. Niether one of us is > going to get a reasonable facsimile of either. I don't acknowledge that the two situations are even vaguely parallel. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info