4 ms·
this form of argument would imply that all holes need to be filled before you can "prove" the other side wrong.
by nazgulnarsil 17y ago
this form of argument would imply that all holes need to be filled before you can "prove" the other side wrong.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoNot at all. The real difference between science and creationism is that science makes predictions. Darwin's theory predicts that there were creatures that formed bridges, as it were. That's a strong prediction, and the apparent absence has been used by creationists to claim that Darwinism has a problem. Creationism makes no predictions. The fact that a fossil has been found that fits Darwin's predictions is strong evidence that Darwin's theory is right.
- TrevorJ 17y agoI understand your basic point, though I don't think it is strictly true that Creationism makes no predictions.
- spydez 17y agoCreationism doesn't, in my opinion, make any predictions. You have to go to Intelligent Design proponents like biochemist Michael Behe before you get predictions. He has the "irreducibly complex" theory, and a few examples of biochemical reactions (human blood clotting is one) that he believes are irreducibly complex. Other scientists have tried to prove his examples weren't irreducibly complex (e.g., dolphins and puffer fish have steps removed from their blood clotting reaction compared to humans), but yeah. AFAIK, (biblical) creationism's whole point is "the Bible is right, QED."
- randallsquared 17y agoCreationists do make predictions regarding the Flood and other biblical events, and regarding the ages of everything else. During the 80s, when I was growing up Baptist, they liked to talk about intertwined human and dino fossils, and dino tracks crossing human tracks that were clearly older, and such. Dunno about now.
- TrevorJ 17y agoAh, ok. I do agree with that point. I was lumping "Intelligent Design" in with Creationism in my previous post.
- tokenadult 17y agoCreationism makes no predictions. Quoted from the parent post of your post to agree with what you say. I think creationists do make one prediction, but it's a prediction that has been proven wrong, so it is not often brought up by creationists. I'm referring to the Biblical account(s) that humankind was specially created as a separate act of creation (and, by implication, through a special process) different from the creation of other animal living things. The prediction is that human beings are radically different in some discernible way from chimpanzees and other living things. But in fact genes and even junk DNA can be traced by common descent not only throughout the primate line but all the way back to the last common ancestor of human beings and fruit flies. The science of molecular genetics has completely blown to smithereens any hope for a "creation science" that is credible to open-minded people. I write this as someone who grew up with very close associations to scientifically educated people who were willing at least to entertain the possibility of young-earth creationism as related in the Biblical texts.
- TheSOB88 17y agoThere has been no apparent absence. Ever heard of an australopithecine? Homo habilis? Homo erectus? These hardly scratch the surface of the variety of the man-apes we've found, yet Creationists still somehow cry for a missing link. They've got several. It's just a problem of willful ignorance. Hm. The article seems to be referring to some other link. My points still stand!
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 17y agoYou mean "some Creationists".
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoaddendum: one of the main advantages of science is that it admits that there are holes. also: I don't think the debate over falsificationism is quite over.
- Semiapies 17y agoNot so much an argument as running up the score on the evidence. The phrasing of the headline is poor, though.