Evolution or Creation??

by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  rem said: There is no "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument. Perhaps you didn't notice the subtle difference between vertebrate and invertebrate. Vertebrates and Invertebrates are not closely related, so there is no prediction that their embryologies should look similar. It would be quite intriguing, though, if the embryology of a human and a chimpanzee were quite different since they are both vertibrates and closely related.

  Sorry, I made a mistake here. You are right in that your argument refered to vertebrates vs. invertebrates. My point about "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument refered to the creatures shown on the diagrams which are all vertebrates.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  I'm sure that you would agree that this in itself not prove that evolution is true and that creation is false. In fact the issue of origins could still be discussed with evidence appealed to.

  Agreed. The only thing falsification proves is that a theory is worthwhile and helps us learn something. A theory that is not falsifiable could never be proven wrong, so there is no way to really tell if it is right.

  Lets say that we have three options for origins:

  Option # 1 Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  Option # 3 Other unknowns

  Let us now say for the sake of argument that only option # 1 is falsifable. If scientific evidence were to show that option # 1 is indeed falsified, then by defalt one of the others must be true even though they are not falsifable. Thus a beliver in option # 2 or # 3 would not necessarlly have to first provide a creation mechanism in order to critique various proposed evolutionary mechanisms. Thus the idea that I have to fist prove "the theory of god" before I appeal to evidence which may possibly falsify evolution is not valid.

  This is not correct. You have lumped a lot of stuff in #3 (Other unknowns). There are many possible falsifiable theories in that bunch. Here is just a short list of possible theories:

  1. Evolution (Neo Darwinism)
  2. Special creation by god
  3. Special creation by Invisible Pink Unicorns
  4. God assisted Evolution
  5. Evolution (Lamarkism)

  etc.

  In that list there are two falsifiable theories and three non-falsifiable ones. #5 has been falsified. #1 is falsifiable, but has not bee falsified yet. If #1 is ever falsified, we can only assume that there is another theory yet to be discovered that can be falsified. There is still no need to take the non-falsifiable theories seriously. If no such theory exists, the best answer is "we don't know yet". If the theory is not falsifiable then there is no way to rank it as more likely than any other. In the list above, numbers 2, 3, and 4 are just as likely. None of them help us learn anything more about biology or our universe because there is absolutely no way to prove whether they are true or false.

  There are many non-falsifiable theories that exist. They are very attractive to many people because they can just come up with ad hoc explanations to counter criticism of their argument (Velokovski, Blondlot's N-Rays, Salem Witch Trials, Freud, John Edwards, etc.). You see this a lot in theories of ESP, UFO's, Cryptozoology, Astrology, Creationism, etc.

  A very good book that explains the importance of falsifiability is Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, by Terence Hines. It's a great read.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  Thank you for your reasoned response rem.

  My three options for origins were intended to describe general concepts.

  Option # 1 Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  Option # 3 Other unknowns

  These three options can as you pointed out be broken down into sub-units such as

  Option # 1 Evolution

  A. Evolution (Neo Darwinism)

  B. Evolution (Lamarkism)

  C. God assisted Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  A. Special creation by god

  B. Special creation by Invisible Pink Unicorns

  Option # 3 Other unknowns
• 

  hooberus

  It seems to me that most of the sub-units listed relate primarily to the mechanism behind each model. such as Evoution, by Neo-Darwinism or Lamarkism or Creation by God or pink unicorns. Despite the fact that each model can have different proposed mechanisms, the general concepts still remain as being Evolution or Creation.
• 

  hooberus

  For the sake of simplicity it can be said that most of the subjects discussed on these evolution/creation threads can be placed under either the general category of Evolution or Creation.

  Things such as creation by God can be placed under the general creation thread while things such as evolution by mutation/selection can be placed under the general heading of Evolution.

  Since the creation mechanisms are proposed to have taken place in the unobserved past they are thus difficult to falsify. However, as we have said this does not necessarily make them false.
• 

  hooberus

  I realise that option # 3 other unknowns is very general. Probably the closest thing that I think that could be put into it would be a hybrid theory in which for example Aliens created fish, and them these fish later evolved into amphibians, reptiles, etc.
• 

  hooberus

  This is not correct. You have lumped a lot of stuff in #3 (Other unknowns). There are many possible falsifiable theories in that bunch. Here is just a short list of possible theories:

  1. Evolution (Neo Darwinism)
  2. Special creation by god
  3. Special creation by Invisible Pink Unicorns
  4. God assisted Evolution
  5. Evolution (Lamarkism)

  etc.

  In that list there are two falsifiable theories and three non-falsifiable ones. #5 has been falsified. #1 is falsifiable, but has not bee falsified yet. If #1 is ever falsified, we can only assume that there is another theory yet to be discovered that can be falsified. There is still no need to take the non-falsifiable theories seriously. If no such theory exists, the best answer is "we don't know yet". If the theory is not falsifiable then there is no way to rank it as more likely than any other. In the list above, numbers 2, 3, and 4 are just as likely. None of them help us learn anything more about biology or our universe because there is absolutely no way to prove whether they are true or false.

  rem, while I agree with you on many of the points you made above, I will take exception with you on the above point which I underlined.

  "If the theory is not falsifiable then there is no way to rank it as more likely than any other. In the list above, numbers 2, 3, and 4 are just as likely."

  The fact that while numbers 2,3, and 4 may each not be falsible does not necessarily mean that one is just as likely as the others. For example God is generally thought of as being all knowing, while pink unicorns are generally thought of as having the intelligence of say for example a horse, which is not enough knowledge to create DNA or other biological structures. Of course this would not necessarily prove that if creation is true that God did it, but it would make it more likely than "creation by pink unicorns" or "creation by french toast etc".
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus,

  Perhaps a better way of dividing them might be into :

  1. Falsifiable scenarios

  2. Unfalsifiable scenarios

  They could then be sub divided as follows:

  1. Falsifiable scenarios

  A. Neo-Darwinism

  B. Lamarckism

  C. Non-deceptive direct creation 6000 years ago.*

  D. Other unknowns

  *I've included this as falsifiable as fossil (and other) evidence can proves that the earth is older than 6000 years which would mean the only kind of special creation would be one designed to fool us.

  2. Unfalsifiable scenarios

  A. Special creation (by gods or unicorns or fairies or whatever)

  B. Assisted evolution

  C. Last Tuesdayism

  C. Other unknowns

  Of the falsifiable scenarios, the only one that really has a chance is neo-Darwinism, B and C having been falsified long ago.

  An interesting thing about the non-falsifiable possibilities is that they all have an equal chance of being right. There's absolutely no way - nor any reason - to distinguish between them. If one of those is correct, we can never ever know which one. It could be one of the above or one I just made up. Even if a god did reveal itself, there'd still be no way of knowing. Is he the real god, is he just the god for our section of the universe or is it part of an elaborate practical joke by the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

  It's like someone saying that cars are powered by invisible elves. You can argue that there's an internal combustion engine and even show how it works but the "elfist" can say that's just the method the elves use to power the car. You can explain the workings of the engine down to the molecular level and the elfist can still say that it's the elves moving the molecules. There is no way to prove the elfist wrong. All you can do is show that the whole system works perfectly well without the elves. If he still wants to believe in elves he can, but it's a whimsical pointless belief, a belief for its own sake rather than for its relationship to reality.
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek, while it is possible to divide things into falsifable and unfalsifable scenarios. I think for the sake of simplicity it is probably better to divide them according to the general concepts of Evolution or Creation. For example if we are comparing the fossil record between the two models it is easier to expalin the data in terms of what we would expect from the general concepts.
• 

  funkyderek

  While I was typing the above hooberus posted three times and made this point which is worth mentioning:

  The fact that while numbers 2,3, and 4 may each not be falsible does not necessarily mean that one is just as likely as the others. For example God is generally thought of as being all knowing, while pink unicorns are generally thought of as having the intelligence of say for example a horse, which is not enough knowledge to create DNA or other biological structures. Of course this would not necessarily prove that if creation is true that God did it, but it would make it more likely than "creation by pink unicorns" or "creation by french toast etc".

  I disagree. I covered this to some extent above. In a way it's absurd to talk about the relative likelihoods of various imaginary entities, but if we are, I don't think that an all powerful being who closely resembles humans is by any means the most likely scenario. Why all powerful? It wouldn't need to be all powerful. In fact, it could be just quite powerful and very stupid but with a lot of time on its hands. Eventually it managed to create something worthwhile. (In fact, such a theory would neatly explain the fact that over 99.9% of species that have ever lived on earth are extinct and why the fossil record shows so many transitional forms.) Your scenario is by no means the most likely.