Random bits
Feb. 9th, 2004 12:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
herewiss13I don't think I'm unjustified in finding it disturbing for spam to describe any portion of my anatomy as a "Purple-helmeted Yogurt Thrower." Am I right?
Second
(taken from Talk.Origins)
Imagine this bit of dialog:
(I hand you a piece of cake.)
YOU: What a wonderful cake! You must give me the recipe!
ME: There was no recipe. My wife made the cake.
YOU: Of course there was a recipe! Just tell me what it is.
ME: I tell you, there was no recipe. My wife made the cake, and that's final!
YOU: But surely she puts in eggs and flour and sugar. How much of each did she put in?
ME: There is no recipe! Do you doubt my wife? Are you calling my wife a liar? Listen, I'm telling you, my wife made the cake!
YOU: Well, how long did she bake it in the oven?
ME: Are you not listening to me? My wife made the cake! There was no oven, there was no recipe, there were no ingredients! My wife made the cake! See, she wrote right here in this note, "Dear Richard, I made this cake." Proof that there was no recipe!
I was heartily amused to read that Mr. Gilchrist (Feb 9) finds "postulates, observations and experimental data" an inadequate defense of evolution. If that isn't enough for evolution, heaven help the rest of science, because that's all we've ever had! Newton _postulated_ that the laws governing the heavens and the earth were identical. He derived equations from Kepler's highly detailed _observations_ of celestial motion and then used them, in an _experiment_, to successfully predict the future motion of objects both above and below. Obviously, these scanty proofs make a paltry excuse for supporting gravity, but what other support can there be?
Less amusing was Mr. Gilchrist's "knowledge" of many physicians who "not only hold a low opinion of the theory of evolution, but a high opinion of creationism." Given that Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth century's leading scientists, said that "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution", I'd be leery of anyone who doesn't care to acknowledge the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria giving me antibiotics.
Beyond all its fallacious claims, the key problem with creationism-as-science is this: It is not falsifiable. Scientists acknowledge that certain discoveries (i.e. human fossils in the Precambrian), would invalidate evolution. Unlikely, true, but the possibility remains open. If it is truly to be labeled a science, I challenge Creationists to describe similar evidence which would disprove their own theories if discovered. Without potential for falsifiability, Creation can't be considered a scientific alternative to evolution.
Second
(taken from Talk.Origins)
Imagine this bit of dialog:
(I hand you a piece of cake.)
YOU: What a wonderful cake! You must give me the recipe!
ME: There was no recipe. My wife made the cake.
YOU: Of course there was a recipe! Just tell me what it is.
ME: I tell you, there was no recipe. My wife made the cake, and that's final!
YOU: But surely she puts in eggs and flour and sugar. How much of each did she put in?
ME: There is no recipe! Do you doubt my wife? Are you calling my wife a liar? Listen, I'm telling you, my wife made the cake!
YOU: Well, how long did she bake it in the oven?
ME: Are you not listening to me? My wife made the cake! There was no oven, there was no recipe, there were no ingredients! My wife made the cake! See, she wrote right here in this note, "Dear Richard, I made this cake." Proof that there was no recipe!
I was heartily amused to read that Mr. Gilchrist (Feb 9) finds "postulates, observations and experimental data" an inadequate defense of evolution. If that isn't enough for evolution, heaven help the rest of science, because that's all we've ever had! Newton _postulated_ that the laws governing the heavens and the earth were identical. He derived equations from Kepler's highly detailed _observations_ of celestial motion and then used them, in an _experiment_, to successfully predict the future motion of objects both above and below. Obviously, these scanty proofs make a paltry excuse for supporting gravity, but what other support can there be?
Less amusing was Mr. Gilchrist's "knowledge" of many physicians who "not only hold a low opinion of the theory of evolution, but a high opinion of creationism." Given that Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth century's leading scientists, said that "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution", I'd be leery of anyone who doesn't care to acknowledge the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria giving me antibiotics.
Beyond all its fallacious claims, the key problem with creationism-as-science is this: It is not falsifiable. Scientists acknowledge that certain discoveries (i.e. human fossils in the Precambrian), would invalidate evolution. Unlikely, true, but the possibility remains open. If it is truly to be labeled a science, I challenge Creationists to describe similar evidence which would disprove their own theories if discovered. Without potential for falsifiability, Creation can't be considered a scientific alternative to evolution.
