Response to "eworkhard", part two...
Responce to eworkhard's comment on my last post:
I think you are confused in what I meant by the ad-hoc hypothesis. What I meant was you could add an add-hoc hypothesis to save your theory from being falsified.
Of course, you could happily say that scientists have been doing this for years, and you would be right. For example, when the scientists back in the "good old days" were observing Uranus, they noticed tiny wobbles in it's orbit which would have disproved a lot of the theory of gravity. However, they came up with an ad-hoc hypothesis which suggested that there may have been another planet, which would have be why Uranus was moving badly (without the annoying innuendos).
Sure enough, they found a planet, Neptune, and the theory of gravity was saved from being falsified.
So how is this different from creationism? Well, I would happily argue that this hypothesis was inderpendently testable, and, could actually be tested. But when a creationist says that the reason that there aren't any human fossils amonst dinosaurs is because God destroyed all the evidence, well, that's taking the biscuit.
Secondly, I wouldn't be too sure about that Dawkins comment. Yes, he would be pretty hostile to say creationism, but then again, it is a theory which is based upon a fairly old book/text, as opposed to observation. And it's not as if it would only be creationism under attack. Lets not forget Lamarkism, eh?
I don't see how Harry Potter is any more dangerous than the Bible. Can you offer me evidence, that it is having a bad effect on us?
As for your last comment (summmed up: "who actually believes teaching evolution causes racism?"), I can present to you, this. One of the main sources for creationist teaching says that evolution is racist. Henry Morris said some crazy things about that...
This is a very basic post, I'll add to it later, but the other comments have got my blood moderatly boiling....
I think you are confused in what I meant by the ad-hoc hypothesis. What I meant was you could add an add-hoc hypothesis to save your theory from being falsified.
Of course, you could happily say that scientists have been doing this for years, and you would be right. For example, when the scientists back in the "good old days" were observing Uranus, they noticed tiny wobbles in it's orbit which would have disproved a lot of the theory of gravity. However, they came up with an ad-hoc hypothesis which suggested that there may have been another planet, which would have be why Uranus was moving badly (without the annoying innuendos).
Sure enough, they found a planet, Neptune, and the theory of gravity was saved from being falsified.
So how is this different from creationism? Well, I would happily argue that this hypothesis was inderpendently testable, and, could actually be tested. But when a creationist says that the reason that there aren't any human fossils amonst dinosaurs is because God destroyed all the evidence, well, that's taking the biscuit.
Secondly, I wouldn't be too sure about that Dawkins comment. Yes, he would be pretty hostile to say creationism, but then again, it is a theory which is based upon a fairly old book/text, as opposed to observation. And it's not as if it would only be creationism under attack. Lets not forget Lamarkism, eh?
I don't see how Harry Potter is any more dangerous than the Bible. Can you offer me evidence, that it is having a bad effect on us?
As for your last comment (summmed up: "who actually believes teaching evolution causes racism?"), I can present to you, this. One of the main sources for creationist teaching says that evolution is racist. Henry Morris said some crazy things about that...
This is a very basic post, I'll add to it later, but the other comments have got my blood moderatly boiling....
Labels: Creationism, Creationist, More responces
posted by Joe Mc'Lynch @ 11:10 PM
4 Comments:
At 21 December, 2006 16:11,
Somewhat Random said…
You appear to assume that any argument for intelligent design automatically relates to young earth creationism. It is, of course, possible to argue for intelligent design without even once refering to the bible. I happen to agree that deriving scientific theories from the bible is ridiculous, but not all those who argue for some sort of intelligent design use the bible in this way.
At 21 December, 2006 19:09,
eworkhard said…
I think you are confused in what I meant by the ad-hoc hypothesis. What I meant was you could add an add-hoc hypothesis to save your theory from being falsified.
I might remind you that evolution seems to make good use of ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ if that is your definition. At first it was proposed that the big bang had occurred just millions of years ago. Now it is billions. At first dating supported millions, now it supports billions. Sound to good to be true? Is this an example of data changing a theory, or theory changing data? Anyway I have a huge problem with dating methods that are used as you can see on my blog http://www.creation-evolution.blogspot.com . The problem with evolution is that the theory needs billions of years to explain how things could have evolved. As this time increases, dating also began to show an increase in time.
Of course, you could happily say that scientists have been doing this for years, and you would be right. For example, when the scientists back in the "good old days" were observing Uranus, they noticed tiny wobbles in it's orbit which would have disproved a lot of the theory of gravity. However, they came up with an ad-hoc hypothesis which suggested that there may have been another planet, which would have be why Uranus was moving badly (without the annoying innuendos).
Sure enough, they found a planet, Neptune, and the theory of gravity was saved from being falsified.
No, although all you state is true, that is not what I was talking about.(although you can add Einstein) Data is data. Scientists take it and try to INTERPRET it. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they simply do not know enough to properly interpret it. I am especially thinking about science around the atom. Many times the theory changes, sometimes quite dramatically.
1) Even our current MO theory cannot explain many things. We say electrons act as waves. Yet, to explain the orbitals, the electrons must pass through the solid nucleus.
2) Why can pair electrons be spun out, and one will flip at the same instant the other does? We do not know. Theories abound, none can actually explain the phenomenon.
a. What then, is the connection between the two. Well, we have no idea about either thing, yet one has a theory that attempts to explain it, the other does not. The MO theory is like evolution. Always changing. Yet never true. If you left civilization and came back 10 or 20 years later you would be surprised at the changes to the theory. Yet Dawkins tries to quite critics and say evolution has all of the evidence. It does not.
So how is this different from creationism? Well, I would happily argue that this hypothesis was inderpendently testable, and, could actually be tested. But when a creationist says that the reason that there aren't any human fossils amonst dinosaurs is because God destroyed all the evidence, well, that's taking the biscuit.
Secondly, I wouldn't be too sure about that Dawkins comment. Yes, he would be pretty hostile to say creationism, but then again, it is a theory which is based upon a fairly old book/text, as opposed to observation. And it's not as if it would only be creationism under attack. Lets not forget Lamarkism, eh?
First off, I have pointed out that much data is INTERPRETED to support evolution. Yet most, if not all data, that fits evolution also fits creation.
As well seems that Lamarkism may not be dead. New evidence is supporting that stress response is transferred through generations. This may also lead to adaptivity. Also, this response through methylation, falls back to normal eventually when no stress is applied. See study here.
I don't see how Harry Potter is any more dangerous than the Bible. Can you offer me evidence, that it is having a bad effect on us?
I do not want to come out and debate societal decline or anything. Yet I feel that I must state that I believe that all this magic and even murder gets to people. They feel that they can also do it. That is why that I think that many movies are also wrong. By portraying something, you are condoning it.
As for your last comment (summmed up: "who actually believes teaching evolution causes racism?"), I can present to you, this. One of the main sources for creationist teaching says that evolution is racist. Henry Morris said some crazy things about that...
Well, I do not necessarily agree with that, and that is the first time that I have heard that. However, I find that they are not saying the evolution caused racism as you originally stated. Rather the articles are stating that evolution antagonized the situation. I am not an expert in this, but I imagine both creationists and evolutionists somewhere would both agree that ‘non white’ races are inferior.
This is a very basic post, I'll add to it later, but the other comments have got my blood moderatly boiling....
I would say do not worry. You wanted to debate me, and I will do that. It may be sporadic due to my schedule, but I will try to reply. As long as things do not get anyone upset…. I take your reply to mean that you absolutely do not agree. Therefore the debate…. ;)
At 21 December, 2006 19:14,
eworkhard said…
Somewhat random - I agree that ID does not immediately relate to YEC. However, ID is based on a 'higher being' As well, ID in the correct sense means that there was a designer. (or Creator) Therefore many of the arguments that evolutionists use against creationists, they also use on ID. You state 'some sort of intelligent design.' Well, like I stated above, ID actually means a designer.
At 26 October, 2007 07:08,
Anonymous said…
TQYIcL Hello! Great blog you have! My greetings!
Post a Comment
<< Home