Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

"On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:44:12 GMT, in article
<C102C6C3.D819%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Evans stated..."

in article 1155232452.151383.267580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Inez at
savagemouse123@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/10/06 10:54 AM:

<snip>

Sasha's testicle "theory" is not based on previous observations, nor does it
describe the behavior of a related set of phenomena. Using this definition,
it's not a scientific theory.

I imagine there could be scientific theories of creationism, but I'm not
certain I've seen them stated that way. %0

You and Tom need to remember you are talking about the leading scientific
theory of the past during the Enlightenment. Were all those scientists
wrong?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting something like what we know as creationism today, the
idea that "kinds" (species or something like that) were created at the
beginning,
and remained fixed within limits ever since then?

A lot of people just weren't interested in the origins of kinds. There was an
interest in the creation of individuals, which showed up, in one form, as a
theory of preformation (and a denial of embryonic development).

I'm not sure that there ever was a *theory of the creation of kinds*. That
would involve telling us what it would mean for a kind to be created, as
disntinguished from individuals being created.

And spontaneous generation was a widespread "theory". And metamorphosis
was, I think, thought of as the production of a new animal out of a different
sort of animal (rather than out of non-living precursor material).


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20

.

Relevant Pages

  • Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
    ... Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes ... advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics. ... amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
    ... Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes ... advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics. ... amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: General Evolutionary Discussion
    ... the discipline to be inclusive of scientists in general is perfectly ...   However, geology and biology are still separate ... geologists (Darwin was a geologist as well as a biologist); ... It is an undisputed round Earth fact that Creationism was a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The contrast between Sean Pitman and Harlan Bretz
    ... Sean himself, and let him answer your objections point by point. ... argument that you think is a good argument against the real science. ... creationism that came before the ID creationist scam? ... U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation- ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading