Science sometimes moves backwards.

[bob b]

This short article makes the case that science sometimes makes blunders that move progress backwards for a time.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/percival_lowell_mars_and_intel.html#more

 

[Mr Fields]

This short article makes the case that science sometimes makes blunders that move progress backwards for a time.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/percival_lowell_mars_and_intel.html#more

Religion has been backwards since day one, so there's only one way it could possibly go.

 

[bowhunter]

Religion has been backwards since day one, so there's only one way it could possibly go.

And you can prove this statement HOW? Just shows your prejudice.

 

[Mr Fields]

And you can prove this statement HOW? Just shows your prejudice.

No need to prove it. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm not trying to prove anything or present it as fact in a public school.

BTW -- Prejudice? How could my previous post be construed as prejudice?

 

[avatar382]

Any scientist will concede that science has been wrong before. Exhibit A: The Bohr model of the atom.

However, the paradigm of science is built so that outdated or incorrect models are easily replaced by better ones. So, what is your point?

 

[bob b]

Any scientist will concede that science has been wrong before. Exhibit A: The Bohr model of the atom.

However, the paradigm of science is built so that outdated or incorrect models are easily replaced by better ones. So, what is your point?

They are not always "easily" replaced.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" as a mechanism to cause macroevolution is a perfect example.

 

[avatar382]

They are not always "easily" replaced.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" as a mechanism to cause macroevolution is a perfect example.

The theory of evolution is the best model we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that it is referred to as a "theory" is a testament to it's explanatory power and maturity.

If you disagree that the TOE is the best model we have to date, and believe you have a better one, then you should show how your proposed model is superior to the existing one.

 

[bob b]

The theory of evolution is the best model we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that it is referred to as a "theory" is a testament to it's explanatory power and maturity.

If you disagree that the TOE is the best model we have to date, and believe you have a better one, then you should show how your proposed model is superior to the existing one.

This thread is about how science sometimes moves backwards for a time before continuing its march toward the truth. You should start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.

 

[avatar382]

This thread is about how science sometimes moves backwards for a time before continuing its march toward the truth. You should start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.

Fair enough.

I will point out however that the aspect of science you are referring to is a great asset, not a liability. Specifically, that when and if science is wrong, the scientific paradigm is designed to mitigate this and correct itself. (peer review, etc)

Contrast this with Young Earth Creationism, which cannot be changed or modified to fit new evidence, because it is based on biblical literalism. (i.e., that the Bible must be absolutely true is a premise)

 

[bob b]

Fair enough.

I will point out however that the aspect of science you are referring to is a great asset, not a liability. Specifically, that when and if science is wrong, the scientific paradigm is designed to mitigate this and correct itself. (peer review, etc)

Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.

Contrast this with Young Earth Creationism, which cannot be changed or modified to fit new evidence, because it is based on biblical literalism. (i.e., that the Bible must be absolutely true is a premise)

You are most certainly wrong about this because I am personally aware of many of the initial ideas of creation science from years ago that were modified as more scientific information has become available. Of course there are two that are immutable, the same two I listed above which lie beyond the reach of the scientific method. :wave:

And your other point about the Bible being absolutely true is a slippery criterion, because as we can easily see on this forum, there is no universal agreement on what the Bible is actually saying!

 

[avatar382]

Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.

Bob - the theory of evolution is not at all concerned with the creation of the universe, and the creation of life from not life. Such things are beyond it's scope.

Will you concede this?

You are most certainly wrong about this because I am personally aware of many of the initial ideas of creation science from years ago that were modified as more scientific information has become available. Of course there are two that are immutable, the same
two I listed above which lie beyond the reach of the scientific method. :wave:

I would be interested in some examples of these initial ideas in creation science that were modified.

Also, there is more than is immutable in YEC thought than you are admitting. An obvious example: The age of the earth. You say ~10000 years old. Is this something that can change with new "creation science discoveries", seeing as how an Earth that is any older would conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

And your other point about the Bible being absolutely true is a slippery criterion, because as we can easily see on this forum, there is no universal agreement on what the Bible is actually saying!

Do you believe that we can obtain complete, absolute truth from a literal interpretation of the Bible on matters of creation? I certainly agree with your observation that there is no universal agreement on the Bible, but to me, that ambiguity is a sign of weakness...

 

[bob b]

Bob - the theory of evolution is not at all concerned with the creation of the universe, and the creation of life from not life. Such things are beyond it's scope.
Will you concede this?

Nope. It's illogical to try to ignore a situation that is a natural consequence of one's theory: namely if you want to extrapolate backwards without limit where do you stop and what have you extrapolated to anyway?

It's like the scientist who extrapolates the Big Bang back to zero and then wonders why people want to know what then?

It's "turtles all the way down" doesn't make it.

I would be interested in some examples of these initial ideas in creation science that were modified.

Try answersingenesis and the institute for creation research. Also any evolutionist book which mocks creationists. You see it is ok if scientists change their mind but not ok if creationists do it.

Also, there is more than is immutable in YEC thought than you are admitting. An obvious example: The age of the earth. You say ~10000 years old. Is this something that can change with new "creation science discoveries", seeing as how an Earth that is any older would conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

If young earth creationists became convinced that time dilation applied to the expansion of the universe I have no doubt that they would modify their ideas to fit the evidence. Do you think creation scientists are stupid? Apparently you do but I don't. At least most of them that is.

Do you believe that we can obtain complete, absolute truth from a literal interpretation of the Bible on matters of creation?

The accounts are too sketchy to achieve complete truth, but they do provide interesting "clues".

I certainly agree with your observation that there is no universal agreement on the Bible, but to me, that ambiguity is a sign of weakness...

Name any comparable collection of stories that can't be interpreted multiple ways. Authors tell us how critics and analysts read meanings into their stories that amaze even the one who wrote them!!

 

[l0progression]

Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.

Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

 

[Jukia]

Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

Welcome, but you will soon realize that few here consider abiogenesis and evolution separate matters. And since we have no proof of abiogenesis (see Urey) then clearly evolution is a function of the great atheistic left wing commie (and probably homo) conspiracy that has its basis in public (also known as "government") education.

But you will have fun!!!!

 

[bob b]

Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

It is certainly true that more recently evolutionists have attempted to do this, but in the earlier days when abiogenesis was thought to be "easy" that it was typically included as another reason to doubt the mythology of the Bible.

I just checked through some of the earlier evolution books in my library by some of the early "saints" and that seems to have been the case, even including Darwin himself.

 

[Johnny]

I just checked throught some of the earlier evolution books in my library by some of the early "saints" and that seems to have been the case, even including Darwin himself.

Can you post some quotes and references?

 

[bob b]

Can you post some quotes and references?

Why would I bother?

"Out of context, out of context".

I've chased those rabbit trails too many times to go down that road again.

Besides, as I've already explained on a thread here, my objective is not to win over diehard evolutionists (impossible, really), but to simply provide some contrary evidence to those sitting on the fence.

 

[Johnny]

"Today's Google icon pays homage to Percival Lowell, the 19th century astronomer who popularized the notion that there were Martian-made canals on the surface of Mars and, therefore, Martians."

Just thought it was kind of funny that an ID author mentions Lowell, who mistook canals on mars as being intelligently designed.

 

[avatar382]

Nope. It's illogical to try to ignore a situation that is a natural consequence of one's theory: namely if you want to extrapolate backwards without limit where do you stop and what have you extrapolated to anyway?

It's like the scientist who extrapolates the Big Bang back to zero and then wonders why people want to know what then?

It's "turtles all the way down" doesn't make it.

Bob, you have an incorrect understanding of the theory of evolution. You really owe it to yourself to study the theory until you attain a complete understanding if you claim to be a "science lover".

The "situation" of life from non-life is NOT a part of the theory of evolution. That is fact. Simply put, all the theory of evolution states is that Any two distinct forms of life share a common ancestor. Evolution is a model for explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc are all far beyond the scope of evolution - and possess nowhere near the certainty. This is why there is no "theory of Big Bang" or "theory of abiogenesis". The fact is, science doesn't really know how the universe or life started. All we have are guesses based on the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is possible that the answers to such questions are simply beyond the human capacity to understand.

Try answersingenesis and the institute for creation research. Also any evolutionist book which mocks creationists. You see it is ok if scientists change their mind but not ok if creationists do it.

If young earth creationists became convinced that time dilation applied to the expansion of the universe I have no doubt that they would modify their ideas to fit the evidence. Do you think creation scientists are stupid? Apparently you do but I don't. At least most of them that is.

The accounts are too sketchy to achieve complete truth, but they do provide interesting "clues".

My understanding of young-earth creationism is that it is accepting the literal contents of the Bible as fact and absolute truth. If this impression is wrong, please correct me.

A consequence of this is that a literal interpretation of the Bible allows drastically less room for wiggling before it's not a 'literal' interpretation anymore!

I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!

Name any comparable collection of stories that can't be interpreted multiple ways. Authors tell us how critics and analysts read meanings into their stories that amaze even the one who wrote them!!

Bob, I can't name any other collection of ancient books that isn't also ambigious, but I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is to be taken literally for absolute truth. Can we know for certain that the Bible is even meant to be taken literally?

 

[Johnny]

Why would I bother?

"Out of context, out of context".

But if they're not out of context why would you worry?

Here's the deal. It doesn't really matter who you quote saying what. The theory of evolution is not, in any way, logically dependent upon the validity of abiogenesis. Thus, to refute one is not to refute the other. This is our point. You may refute abiogenesis, but this says nothing about the principles of natural selection. Mutations and natural selection can still take place regardless of abiogenesis. You haven't made a logical connection between the principles and driving force of natural selection and abiogenesis that would validate grouping them together.