Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.

Actually, that statement is a theory. Taken literally, it might be rephrased as “this event had no cause”. I always liked that one, because I have heard the argument many times that such a statement does not qualify as a theory because it is fundamentally not testable (since it ignores causality, which all theories rely on). However, I would point out that the statement *is* testable; give that, in essence, one is simply trying to determine if causality is required. If one is to observe other non-causal events, then one might conclude that such events do happen, and therefore “magic” does exist. Most people don’t do this, though we observe many non-causal events every day (I mean in the strict sense that the actions that led to the state of the event were not observed by us). Usually, we possess other descriptions of reality that would lead us to believe that the event was indeed caused by something else (though we didn’t observe it). However, one that did not have such a background may indeed believe that the event was caused by “magic”.

That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.

[elf]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

...

That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.

You have no idea how many posts I have deleted just for that very exact reason. There's things that are so very clear in your head, and then when you try to enunciate them, they all of a sudden seem muddled up.

However, you did make plenty of sense to me. At least, if you meant something along the lines of what I tell my son: "If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."

Queen of simplification? y/n?

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by elf

"If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."

Queen of simplification? y/n?

Sort of. Think of it this way – I walk outside to get in my car and leave (fully expecting my car to be there), only to discover my car isn’t where I parked it. I now need to develop a theory to explain what has happened to it. I might surmise that it was stolen. This would be reasonable, since I have prior experience with such events. However, I might also conclude that my car was transported to neverland. So I decide to test both theories; I call the police, report my car stolen, and sure enough, they tell me it has been found miles away. My theory is, therefore, adequately confirmed. Now I want to test the other theory. How do I do this? Most would say that I can’t, since there is nothing to test. However, what am I really testing? I am really trying to see if events that occur without explanation are reasonable. Since I encounter events like this numerous times every day (since most of what occurs I do not observe directly), I might conclude that such an explanation is reasonable. In fact, I would argue that all people who believe in what is generally described as “religious fundamentalism” most conclude that the aforementioned hypothesis is reasonable. I am not trying to put anyone down; the validity of one’s beliefs is none of my business. However, such an assertion is not, at its base “religious”. It is merely a judgment call on how much information is needed to validate a theory. Religion comes in when one believes that no justification is required or allowed.

The main point of all this is that a common argument for not teaching creationistic theories in public school is that such theories are “religious”. When pressed, people will sometimes say that since creationist theories are akin to magic, they are fundamentally not testable, and therefore should not be taught. My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.

I think that if my child asked me a similar question, I might well reply in the same manner as you. Of course, I might try to explain what I meant as I did above, which would very likely be futile. Then I would buy us both ice cream.

: )

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.

No, they are not testable. If you spot a problem in a religious assertion, they can say "God is omnipotent and inscrutable, and He made it that way", and presto! The hole is gone.