Contains the simulated creationism hypothesis
Creationism: Not Science
From my point of view, Prof. Schmid-Hempel is absolutely right with his criticism of creationism when he calls it “nonsense”. Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University, put it even harder than he wrote:
"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant, inexcusably ignorant." [Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 1995, p. 46]
Biology is natural science and the theory of evolution is the biological explanation of the origin of the diversity of species on our planet. Creationism is not a science, but at most one of many "isms" that are scientific but not scientific. That is why such creation hypotheses have absolutely no place in a biology textbook. Creationism may be part of a religion class but not a biology lesson.
The creation hypotheses of “intelligent design” or creationism cannot claim the status of a scientific theory for various reasons. This is what ultimately degrades their proponents to pseudoscientists if they insist that they argue with scientific methods.
How I come to such assertions, I would like to show in the following lines.
1. Missing statements The creation hypothesis is at best an attempt to explain, but it does not make any deductive or falsifiable statements as we would expect from real theories. Here are two examples: - It says nothing about the age of the earth, so it allows the thesis of a very old and at the same time that of a very young earth. - It does not make any statement about the relationship between species. According to the thesis, God could just as easily have made all species completely different in structure. both in terms of visible features and at the molecular level. Then why are there the startling similarities between the species? How does the creation hypothesis explain such obvious kinship?
A theory is only meaningful if clear, comprehensible statements are made through a theory and if it excludes other logical observations. In other words, because the creation hypothesis is as broad as the creationists put it, it doesn't refute anything, but it doesn't prove anything either.
2. Age of the earth The creation hypothesis postulates an age of the earth of approx. 6-10,000 years. The actual age of the earth is estimated by scientists to be 4.54 billion years, with an accuracy of about 1%. The estimate is currently based on three mutually independent methods. However, the creationists only denounce these provisions as "faulty" measuring methods with a dismissive gesture. Today around 30 radiometric dating methods are known. The probability that all of the methods are wrong, and that they all differ by the same amount, is very close to zero. Accordingly, the earth is in all likelihood very, very old, and if it is (as I think), the creation hypothesis has already been refuted in its foundations.
3. The theory of evolution does not prove anything An essential accusation is again and again: "The theory of evolution does not prove anything ..." because it is falsifiable. Such statements only testify to a fundamental ignorance of the scientific methodology. Because precisely in the falsifiability of a scientific theory, which subsequently leads to revisions or modifications, where nothing is irrevocable and no dogmas stand in the way of change or slow down progress, lies the strength of natural science!
The creation hypothesis, however, is based on the infallibility of the holy scriptures. It is precisely this irreversibility that stands in stark contrast to scientific methodology and thus condemns the doctrine of creation to non-scientific nature. The more obviously creationism itself still clings to refutable and refuted details, the clearer it becomes that it is based almost entirely on the truth of revelation, the more unscientific it becomes. The Bible's claim to infallibility is by no means a strength, but rather turns out to be the greatest weakness of the theses of "intelligent design" and creationism, at least with regard to their scientific claim.
4. Consistency with other theories The statements of the theory of evolution are among others. supported by the knowledge of geology and paleontology. Conversely, the theory of evolution in turn supports the theory of the continental drift hypothesis, biogeography, etc. The theories of science are thus closely interwoven and strongly dependent on one another.
The creation hypothesis, however, lacks such an integration. For example, it is not possible to use paleontological finds to support creation. So if creationism were correct in claiming that the radiometric age determinations were wrong, not only would the theory of evolution be wrong, but also many other findings, such as those of geology, which are partly based on the dating of rocks and deposits using the same radiological measurement methods. Since these would also be questioned, the chemical and physical theories on which radiometry is based would inevitably also be wrong.
Michael Grevé - 07.09.08
- Which is the best Spider-Man series
- Is It Possible To Lose 100 Pounds
- Why should wheat flour be refrigerated?
- What does a bloated stomach mean
- What are the symptoms of serous pericarditis
- Is the Philippines really a secular nation?
- Cats can wear dog harnesses
- Indonesia uses Sharia law
- What is a limbic system
- What do Eastern Europeans think of Scotland?
- Why are psychopaths always attractive
- The Apple card charges interest
- What is nuclear magnetic resonance used for?
- What does the Bible say about Enoch
- Why don't people want to adopt teenagers
- Welding nozzles can be removed
- What are the best options for options trading
- What types of cats are purring
- What is a McRefugee
- Do hamsters know who owns there
- Women's eyelashes thin as they age
- Can a non-technical person learn QlikView
- What is the best Shayari app
- Does Netflix have a sustainable competitive advantage