What are the best arguments against creationism?
|
Since it's a non-scientific claim, it's hard to argue in general. The obvious response is: what is the testable prediction? The current scientific theories are there because they are based on data and have survived the test of their predictions. What experiment would falsify the god hypothesis? The best argument against creationism is that there is nothing to argue against. Creationist have yet to craft an intelligent reason why creationism is even a viable theory. This is why no one took the time to answer the debate topic. There is nothing to answer too. Edit: Apparently my timing sucks; no sooner said then someone beats me to it The most easily refuted creationist claim is the one about odds, where they argue the odds of the universe, the planet, and our species developing as they did are so remote that they cannot possibly be a product of chance. It's a bunky argument because it mixes pre and post fact statistics. It's like saying the odds of any specific combination being drawn in Powerball are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 therefore no number will be drawn. That's sorta on the right track, but not quite right. The Powerball analogy would be rejected by Intelligent Design people. (And that's not the same as creationists--far from it--so if I'm off track in bringing in ID stuff, feel free to vote me down. :) ) They might see the example below as more indicative of their position: A set of letters are present that happen to spell out 'Hello world.' Meaning, the letters APPEAR to have some sort of content or order to them. The odds of those exact letters being present are 1 in a kajillion. And you can give all sorts of reasons for those odds. Doesn't matter. The point is there are letters appearing to have content/order. Given that, is it more likely that the letters are present at least in part because of some sort of ordering intelligence, or is it more likely that it was random? Of course, just because they appear to have order/content doesn't mean intelligence was involved. Correlation doesn't entail causation. But given that order/content appears to be on the table, which is more likely: Some kind of ordering intelligence or not? The follow up question is, 'Okay, fair enough, but can you even answer that question with any kind of precision??' ID people say, not only is intelligence more likely, it's also discernible through such and such techniques, evaluation of certain kinds of evidence, etc. ID people, of course, are left with the burden of showing how their methods/techniques can determine--at least probabilistically--that intelligence is at work. Opponents of ID are then tasked with arguing that ID methodology is not a legitimate approach to answering the question. 1
point
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics Side: second law of thermodynamics
Evolution explains change in a species over time in a way that makes sense. Evolution does not explain how life was created in a way that make sense. Creationism is the only explanation that explains the creation of life that makes at least a little sense to me that I have heard. I'm willing to believe that Adam and Eve might have resembled a monkey rather than a human being, but not that they were zapped to life by a bolt of lighting. Hollywood tried that and failed. Side: second law of thermodynamics
That's actually kind of a silly statement. There's plenty of evidence, its a matter of how we interpret that evidence. For instance, in the thread about whether there is a God, some look at the evidence that there's a creation, and logically arrive at a conclusion that there is a creator. This universe is the evidence. Now, one who doesn't believe in a creator, would look at the creation and read the evidence in a different light. The evidence is the same. Side: second law of thermodynamics
geoff, be careful, "reason" is a very objective word. Again, you might consider such claims unreasonable, others wouldn't. rocknwow, I'm not going down any slippery slope. Both sides have the same slope. Either there was a God who created time and space, or, there was nothing that created time and space. Or rather, it just happened. I certainly understand the idea that complexity just can't happen, but I wonder, who defines complex? Let's use the same argument that's used against calling this universe a creation. Isn't "complexity" just as arbitrary? Also, are the laws of this universe complex? B/c I wonder what they evolved from? Side: second law of thermodynamics
I think you're affirming the consequent. I think your argument is something like this: 1. If there is a creator, we can call the universe 'creation.' 2. We call the universe 'creation.' Therefore, there is a creator. But that doesn't follow. There are lots of potential causes that result in 'we call the universe "creation,"' including 'I want to call the universe 'creation' regardless of what anyone else says.' For instance: 1. If I want to call the universe 'creation' regardless of what anyone else says, we can call the universe 'creation.' 2. We call the universe 'creation.' Therefore, I want to call the universe 'creation regardless of what anyone else says. Or even this: 1. If Elvis is alive, then we can call the universe 'creation.' 2. We call the universe 'creation.' Therefore, Elvis is alive. Bottom line: Affirming the consequent doesn't work. Side: second law of thermodynamics
|
