National Public Radio
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
However, predictions can in some cases be made on the basis of the model, and individual claims are often able to be tested. | However, predictions can in some cases be made on the basis of the model, and individual claims are often able to be tested. | ||
|2= | |2= | ||
| + | We agree that creationism cannot be falsified, and that's why it's not science. | ||
| + | They are simply wrong when they state that evolution cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. Most famously, [[Richard Lenski]] observed the evolutionary adaptation of E. coli.<ref>[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40006/title/Molecular_Evolution ScienceNews write-up on Lenski's work]</ref>. Also, evolution can be tested, as it was in Lenski's experiment, providing an environment in which adaptation would confer advantages. In the case of Lenski's work, some E. coli evolved the ability to consume citrate. Finally, evolutionary processes can be reproduced, and this continues to be the case. Evolution is not something that happened in the past - it's an ongoing process. Although evolution is typically slow, we've seen examples in Lenski's work and in the ongoing development of viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria.<ref>[[wp:Antibiotic resistance|Wikipedia article on antibiotic resistance]] and their article on [[wp:Viral evolution|viral evolution]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Creation is not comparable to evolution. Creation is a myth, no different to the creation myths of Nordic and Hindu religions. Creationism and evolution can both make predictions, with evolutionary predictions continually reinforcing the basic theory. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 21:26, 11 January 2010
This is a critique of the Biblical Creation article found at A Storehouse of Knowledge (aSK). The original content has been reproduced here for purposes of criticism and commentary. The original links and references are used to preserve the context intended by the author(s). Links provided in our responses will typically be made to RationalWiki articles.
| Biblical creation, as understood by aSK | Our commentary |
Introduction
| Biblical creationism is the view that the creation account in the book of Genesis is an accurate historical record.
It is often known as Young Earth creationism. Forms of creationism which accept an old earth position but reject evolution are collectively known as Old Earth Creationism. |
This is about as honest and factual as the article gets. Enjoy it while you can. |
Premises
Biblical creation includes the following premises derived from the ask:Bible:
|
These premises are, on the whole, faith-based assertions. One could argue that that the world was created last thursday by a malevolent gerbil. God is defined in such a way as to render creationism unfalsifiable! God can bypass the laws of nature, thus allowing us to ascribe just about anything to God. RationalWiki, like all websites, appears to be hosted on a web-server. However it may in fact be hosted on a cantaloupe melon on the moon. We can't be certain, since God may be meddling with the laws of nature.
How do they support the assertion that God can defy the laws of nature? They cite a miracle of course. There is no evidence for this miracle let alone the events of the exodus. We should accept this evidence for now, if only so we can enjoy the fantasy of a website being hosted on a melon. Baraminology is a creationist attempt to reconcile speciation with scripture. Mainstream science dismisses it as pseudo-science. |
Research
Seriously though, here are their comments regarding research
| Sceptics often accuse biblical creationists of not doing research.
This is a false claim, as research is being done, including being published in peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of Creation and Journal of Creation. However, secular governments, whilst giving many billions of dollars to research the naturalistic theory of evolution, do not support creationist research, so essentially all such research is done in the researcher's own time at his own expense, or funded through private donations. It is not surprising, therefore, that creationists are unable to undertake research at anything like the same scale as evolutionists. Further, the creation model is still relatively new.
|
Sceptics don't claim that creationists are not doing research. We can readily accept that they are conducting research. The problem is that they're not doing science, and that's why they have to publish in phony-baloney journals like the Journal of Creation and Answers Research Journal. Neither of the aforementioned journals are taken seriously outside of creationist circles, with the later being a product of Answers in Genesis. If creation scientists did real science they'd be able to publish their work in mainstream journals, such as Nature. Creationists may as well back-up their assertion to having published research by referencing the wealth of scientific papers they've published on MySpace and FaceBook.
Creation scientists would attract plenty of funding if they actually did science. Although creationists, such as Ben Stein, claim a conspiracy to suppress creationism, any scientist with a serious scientific theory for creationism would attract grants and acclaim from the scientific world. Science is a competitive field, and it's difficult to imagine any nation or institute dismissing the gravitas gained from having overturning a well established theory. |
Falsifiability
| Critics will often claim that creation is not falsifiable, and hence not scientific.
However, they will also often claim that it has been falsified, which is impossible if it is not falsifiable. As creation, like evolution, is a series of unique events in the past, it cannot be scientifically observed, tested, nor reproduced. However, predictions can in some cases be made on the basis of the model, and individual claims are often able to be tested. |
We agree that creationism cannot be falsified, and that's why it's not science.
They are simply wrong when they state that evolution cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. Most famously, Richard Lenski observed the evolutionary adaptation of E. coli.[2]. Also, evolution can be tested, as it was in Lenski's experiment, providing an environment in which adaptation would confer advantages. In the case of Lenski's work, some E. coli evolved the ability to consume citrate. Finally, evolutionary processes can be reproduced, and this continues to be the case. Evolution is not something that happened in the past - it's an ongoing process. Although evolution is typically slow, we've seen examples in Lenski's work and in the ongoing development of viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria.[3] Creation is not comparable to evolution. Creation is a myth, no different to the creation myths of Nordic and Hindu religions. Creationism and evolution can both make predictions, with evolutionary predictions continually reinforcing the basic theory. |
References
- ↑ For example, God miraculously allowed the Israelites to cross the Jordan River by means of an upstream landslide temporarily blocking the flow of the river.
- ↑ ScienceNews write-up on Lenski's work
- ↑ Wikipedia article on antibiotic resistance and their article on viral evolution
