Ken Ham on Nite Line
People are only taught evolution in school, normally. They should also be taught creation as well. Do you agree? Please think about choices and decisions on what we want to know and feel and do and believe about everything now and in the past too. Science means natural philosophy. Religion means supernatural philosophy.
http://AnswersinGenesis.org
Agree
great
Hi, here in this series of articles I am trying to expLore Evolution n creation from Eastern philosophies... Here is my first post, that tackles creation from the point of Big Bang.. do give it a read, upvote / resteem only if u agree...
Om - The first breath of creation, the sound of the Universe
https://steemit.com/life/@bsameep/the-sound-of-the-universe-or-the-sound-of-big-bang-theories-of-evolution-from-eastern-part-of-the-world
interesting
Yes it is... Evolution is a long story... Some aspects that we can explain we call it science, so aspects which we cannot explain (with current scientific capabilities) we call it Religion or Creationism.
Why do you say people should be taught creationism in school when you rightly point out that it is not science?
"Science means natural philosophy. Religion means supernatural philosophy."
Creationism is religion, not science. It should not be taught as science.
Evolution is not religion?
Evolution is a testable, falsifiable, natural explanation to physical phenomenon. That makes it science. Creationism is an untestable, unfalsifiable, supernatural explanation to physical phenomenon. That makes it religion.
How do you test the past?
The same way you test anything in science. You make predictions based on the theory and test them. Think of it as a series of "if/then" statements. "If this aspect of evolutionary theory is correct, then we should see this under these conditions."
An example of this that has been used to test one aspect of past evolution is:
If this group of animals is more closely related to each other than to other animals, then we should see that their DNA sequences are more similar to each other than to other animals (based on what we know about how DNA is passed down with modification).
And indeed, that is what we see.
Do cats and dogs have sex and make dog cats?
No. And evolutionary theory doesn't predict that. In fact, evolutionary theory explains why they don't.
Why not? If we all evolve from the same place, then why not? Cats and dogs cannot come together and produce kitten puppy hybrids? What did Charles Darwin say in his 1859 book Origin of the Species?
That is a fallacy of affirming the antecedent (I think). It’s not enough to say "if X is true then we predict Y; we see Y therefore X is true." This approach fails to acknowledge any other possible explanations for Y.
All you can say logically is that if Y is true then X MAY be true.
Another very obvious explanation for the scenario you offer is that DNA sequences are similar because the animals have the same designer.
With the logic you offer, one can prove anything: flat Earth, life is a simulation, or red is blue.
It's not a fallacy, and no one is saying "we see Y, therefore X is true." We are saying, if X is true we should expect to see Y. And we do that over and over and over again, for different predictions. And we evaluate predictions for alternative hypotheses as well. For evolution this has been going on for 150 years and everything we have learned about biology in that time has affirmed evolutionary theory. That gives us a strong indication that it is correct. Yes, it could also be a designer, but in the case of a designer you could say it was designed that way no matter what you see, which is why I say it is not falsifiable and therefore not science.
Ok, I stand corrected on the fallacy thing, provided you are not actually standing on these predictions as proofs.
But to say that everything we have learned about biology for the last 150 years affirms evolutionary theory can only be true if you are wearing a particular color of glasses. There are many biological processes and constructs which evolutionary theory cannot explain except with the most optimistic hypotheses. I have never heard of a good refutation of irreducible complexity, for example. There are myriad elements in biological systems which would have no use and no contribution to the survival of the fittest by themselves, and many systems which can only work if all the elements are first in place.
No, it is not.