Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 12
<Creationist whine>"The line is not being moved" I feel it is. I offered two predictions, but by applying two different standards (one to evolution, one to creation), the predictions were judged to be faulty.

So you offered a theory, and people looked at your theory and offered criticism. What did you expect? That you could just throw something out there and have everyone else let it lie, and say "now this is science!"? You can't just say "Okay, I have a prediction: the sky is blue" and suddenly have journal editors everywhere beating a path to your door. You have to actually do the work of making an airtight case.

You apparently think that creationism is being singled out for attack, and that the other scientists in the world never have to defend their positions. Let me disabuse you of that notion. EVERYONE who offers a new scientific theory has to defend themselves from critical attack. Submit a paper to a scientific journal, and some of the most well-trained minds in the world are immediately going to be going over it with a fine tooth comb, looking for any possible flaws or problems. That is half the point of scientific journals.

And if the theory doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny, it doesn't get published and it doesn't get a glance from the rest of the scientific community. There are all kinds of reasons why a paper might fail publication. For instance, just because you SAY your theory predicts something doesn't mean it DOES. You have to justify why the continued viability of the theory depends, to some extent, on the success of the prediction.

Your prediction may be data mining. Your tests may be impossible in practice. You may try some tests and they don't support your theory. Or, you may say that you did tests, but other scientists find that it is impossible to repeat them, so you could have been making it up for all they know.

The herbivore thing is a perfect example. Apocalypse used creationism to "predict" that humans must be better off as vegetarians. I asked a question that really meant: Why should creationism require this? You came along and says "Well, of course it doesn't." At that point, Apocalypse said, "Okay, I guess creationism is still just as true if humans aren't vegetarians." See? We examine the claim, it doesn't hold up, so the claim is thrown out.

Because every claim is open to intense scrutiny, people who haven't been trained in science often wind up believing that science is a members-only club, where established scientists are treated with kid gloves, while newcomers are shown the door. This isn't right at all. Everyone, including scientists with hundreds of successful publications, has to withstand the same rigorous process every time they propose something new.

This may seem unfair, but it's all about weeding out the loser theories and only keeping the ones that can handle all that criticism. In that sense, it's not unlike capitalism: Bad businesses go bankrupt. Effective ones stay in business for a long time. It may seem harsh to the bad business owners, but over time it leads to incredibly tough competitors and better products at appropriate market prices.

I might add that it's also a lot like natural selection, which you don't believe in.

Creationists don't think they should have to go through this process, though. They think that because they are invoking a god, they should be treated special. That's why so many of them simply give up the fight to get published in a real journal, and go on the church lecture circuit where they can expect to be greeted almost entirely by sympathetic audiences.

But they were predictions, and they were testable. Your sides strategy is to deny scientific status, even if your methods to deny are not themselves scientific. Ironic.

None of your "predictions" held water. All of them either were untestable, or else there was no legitimate reason why the theory should predict that. Why *must* a creator make things that meet the criteria of your predictions? If it turned out any other way, then you could (and almost certainly would) fall back on "Well, he works in mysterious ways, and his purposes are inscrutable."

At least young earth creationism had claims that were specific enough to be testable. The problem is, whenever you actually try out their tests, they fail. That's why young earthism has already been jettisoned by all but the most die-hard creationists, in favor of a safer, vaguer, less specific version.
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.