david f, neither you nor george have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing runner. of anything. and for convincing runner, the point between you and george is irrelevant. but i would have thought george had a good point.

could, for example, newtonian physics now be proved wrong? yes, of course, conceivably. but it has predicted so much so well. at this stage it does seem quite literally on the order of sun-not-coming-up improbability.

the theoretical falsifiability of a scientific theory should be kept in context, with how successful the theory has been. in this manner, newtonian phsyics and evolution seems pretty much in the same boat.

Dear david f,

Actually I had exactly phlogiston and ether in brackets as exceptions ("theories" that were abandoned) but had to abandon them (no pun intended) because the post would have exceeded 350 words. I am no historian of science, and do not want to argue about the meaning of "established", but I believe that Newton‘s mechanics was more established than e.g. phlogiston “theory“.

All I wanted to say was that Darwin’s theory was comparable to Newton’s and not to, say, the dead-end theory of phlogiston.

Of course, any scientific theory is provisional until shown either as fertile, capable of further development (like Newton's, Einstein's, Darwin's, QM, irreducibility or other nature of atoms or particles) or dead-end (like phlogiston, ether). Actually, phlogiston or ether were artificial substitutes for unexplained phenomena (kind of "gods of the gaps").

Unexplained phenomena (or simply enigmas or paradoxes) in 20th and 21st century physics, arguably occur on a more mathematically treatable and less artificial “god of the gaps” level (David Bohm's hidden variable, multiverse or Everett's many-world, etc.), are consciously speculative, hence these speculative additions do not become that easily parts of established theories.

Yes, I believe that 21st century physics has become less likely to branch into dead ends that will have to be completely abandoned, also because of a more explicit use of (pure) mathematics. And I believe that also biology, notably genetics, will benefit from more use of some very abstract pure mathematics (not only statistics) including mathematics not yet discovered/invented.

Threads like this - that bring on the old stoush between sanity and creationism - are always fun.

Rhian suggests...

>>In my view, the Genesis creation accounts grapple with what it means to be human at this deeper level – moral consciousness, dependence/ independence and free will, the capacity to do harm, self-awareness and the fear of death.<<

The average episode of Neighbours, or Home and Away, performs pretty much the same function, I would have thought. Certainly, the scriptwriters believe so. Most serious literature throughout history, from Chaucer to Dostoevsky to Ian McEwan, tackles the same issues, basically because that is its function.

As do cartoons.

Season 4 Episode 18 of Family Guy gave us "The Father, the Son and the Holy Fonz", which satirized (or illustrated, depending on the strength of your atheism) the ability of religion to acquire any symbol, and weave a story around it to entrap the gullible/reinforce the faith. Genesis appears to fall into this category, given that it was put together entirely independently of any Christian influence, but later appropriated by that sect.

Evolutionary theory, which was the result of careful research over many years, is not a symbol, or a parable, or a repository of moral instruction. There is therefore absolutely no point in comparing it with any part of the Bible.

>>Human existence is not just a scientific problem<<

In a very real sense, it is.

Rhian makes a distinction between there being "scientific explanations of why parents are heartbroken by the deaths of their children, why husbands cheat on their wives, why we fear to die, or why human societies go to war" and "what it means to be a human living in a world where these things happen"

Having accepted that there are indeed credible evolutionary theories that show how we react to our environment, how are these different from "what it means to be human"? It seems to me that they are one and the same.

AdamD

You ask

'Could you please enlighten me as to what some of these "holes" in evolution are that you refer to? Could you also list one observation that makes creationism more observable?'

First the fossil record has never validated evolution despite many dishonest and fraudulent attempts to do so by 'scientist over decades.School textbooks have proudly displayed these frauds as you know. Darwin hoped that future fossil records would validate his theories. 150 years later we are still waiting. Discredited evolutionist such as Donald Prothero who claimed to have found transitional fossils are now an embarrassment to any honest scientist. Just like the modern day climate change priests who get predictions terribly wrong many still insist their dogmas are backed by science.

Secondly every scientist knows after hundreds of years of testing that contrary to Darwin's theory that life can not come from non living chemicals. Evolution has never had even a half plausible explanation for beginnings. Honest scientist who treat evolution as a theory agree with Dr. Robert Hazen who says " I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials'

Assumption (faith if you like) is the starting point of evolution. In fact one big assumption which can't be backed by true science.

The thing that makes creation far more observable is that every 3 year old child can observe that where their is creation it follows that their is a Creator. Arguements may abound as to who that Creator is although it is infinitely more plausible than a silly outdated theory that men cling to in hope that one day they won't have to face their Maker.

Dan, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about Marx, Freud and particularly Mendel; despite my own words earlier:

"What I meant to convey was that whereas science texts are constantly being rewritten, added to, revised and sometimes thrown out, the Bible, Torah and Koran are treated in the exact opposite fashion."

I would consider Lamarck and Becher to be better examples of theories to be thrown out. Certainly many of Freud's ideas may seem 'quaint' today, but he doesn't seem to be totally irrelevant:

"While of significant historical interest, many of Freud's ideas have fallen out of favor or have been modified by Neo-Freudians, although in the past ten years, advances in the field of neurology have shown evidence for many of his theories. Freud's methods and ideas remain important in clinical psychodynamic approaches. In academia his ideas continue to influence the humanities and some social sciences."
Wikipedia.

As for Marx, obviously this will always be a more emotive topic, yet I feel it takes a certain courage (In the Sir Humphrey sense of the word) to completely write him off at this precise point in history, when our current flavour of Capitalism is doing such a great job of self destruction.
As for Mendel, I really don't see how his work challenged Darwin at all.
Darwin's contention was that 'somehow' parents passed on their characteristics to their children. White parents tend to have white babies, etc.
Mendel's work demonstrated exactly how these characteristics were passed on.

Runner you appear to think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. The vatican disagrees. Perhaps you have your own version of Christianity independent of the church's.

"the fossil record has never validated evolution"

Um, no. The fossil record has never invalidated evolution. Each discovery has either reinforced or expanded upon the theory.

"contrary to Darwin's theory that life can not come from non living chemicals."

Did Darwin really say this?
This is something science is readily prepared to admit it does not know, there being no evidence either way. Going on what can be rationally deduced, it was spontaneous under precise conditions. Do not forget Runner that Genesis was likely written by a mortal with less worldly education than today's average teenager. Or as you put it, with the intellect of a three year old.

What evidence is there that the ice ages never occurred? To put it another way, what plausible evidence is there genesis must be taken literally?

And why on earth do I try to debate rationally with a creationist?