IMO best poll choices are OEC and "not sure"
Public opinion polls on origins usually allow the folllowing choices--
unguided evolution -- -some supporting evidence, a lot of opposing evidence
old--earth creationism-- a lot of evidence for an old earth and "changes through time"
young-earth creattionism -- little supporting evidence, no opposing evidence other than a lack of supporting evidence. The appearance that the earth is old could be an illusion
So,
IMO best poll choices are OEC and "not sure"
unguided evolution -- -some supporting evidence, a lot of opposing evidence
old--earth creationism-- a lot of evidence for an old earth and "changes through time"
young-earth creattionism -- little supporting evidence, no opposing evidence other than a lack of supporting evidence. The appearance that the earth is old could be an illusion
So,
IMO best poll choices are OEC and "not sure"
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/27/2011 09:44:00 AM
13 Comments:
>>>>>>unguided evolution -- -some supporting evidence, a lot of opposing evidence<<<<<<
And yet, despite all his claims that there is lots of opposing evidence, Larry has yet to produce even one piece of evidence that actually opposes evolution.
No offense but it I don't see a lot of evidence "against" evolution. I see the lack of the ability to prove or disprove some creator but that's not the same thing at all. So for my money if asked and based only on scientific evidence and using Occam's razor I'd have to go with the first choice. But everyone has their own answer.
<<<<<<I see the lack of the ability to prove or disprove some creator but that's not the same thing at all.<<<<<<<
It is not the same thing, but this lack of ability means that we cannot determine whether or not evolution ---and unguided evolution in particular --is an illusion.
And I think that there is a lot of objective scientific evidence against evolution.
Not that I've seen.
Though some things cited as evidence are not in fact evidence but an argument. For example, the complexity issue isn't "evidence" rather it's an argument.
What in the hell are you talking about? Complexity is "evidence." Saying that complexity is evidence against evolution is an "argument."
OK, let's play your word game. I will change my statement to say, "there are lots of objective arguments against evolution."
I would also argue against the term objective. But it's not a word game evidence would be something concrete. A protein for example that could not occur naturally. Saying something is so complex that it is not likely to happen is an argument. A counter theory if you will.
Evolution predicts complexity (e.g., Muller 1918), so complexity per se is not an objective argument against evolution. In order to invoke complexity as an argument against evolution, you must think of a pattern of complexity that is not explainable by evolution.
Co-evolution is an example of a pattern of complexity that is predicted by evolution (again by Muller).
Lazarus is still playing word games and Anonymous is begging the question.
Larry what question was being beg? He was pointing out that things like complexity and co evolution were predicted. Which doesn't seem to be begging any question but a historical statement.
Also I'm not playing "word games" though i can play a mean game a scrabble.
>>>>>Larry what question was being beg? He was pointing out that things like complexity and co evolution were predicted<<<<<
His argument is that evolution predicts complexity and coevolution
>>>>>Also I'm not playing "word games"<<<<<<
Yes, you are ---saying that a complex protein is evidence but that complexity is not
IMO "not sure" or more precisely "from a scientific point of view, nobody knows the answer," is the most plausible choice.
Properly speaking, the word "science" must be restricted to that which can be demonstrated by repeatable experiments. Thus true science can be quite precise, but it is also very narrow. Science cannot deal at all with most questions, and "what is the origin of species?" is a question which science will never be able to answer.
Jim never say never after all who knows when we'll be able to travel in time and directly observe history.
Welcome back, Jim! My favorite commenter.
Post a Comment
<< Home