Is there an 'Old Earth' creationist theory?

I personally think that you seem a bit too hung up on your interpretation of "scientific",

and certainly do not think that Astrology and Evolution share equal scientific validity

but the evolutionary theory does seem to use more than just guess work, and belief, to validate it's findings

Do you have a reason for asserting it is unscientific?

Most people who challenge evolution, do so from a religious standpoint

and merely attempt to use the science definition to confuse the issue

It is a valuable subject, and has expanded our understanding of our world, and the creatures that exist now, and their predecessors, and I cannot see any negative arising from teaching it.

Why not assume or assert that the scientific method is wrong or incomplete? It seems that millions of scientits are comfortable with calling it a theory and science.

If/when/have we encountered a scientific truth and it proves unfalsifiable it will no longer be scientific?

Is it not equally arrogant to assume that Popper's formula for Scientific method is perfect final and a Truth?

Also previously we agreed that part of the problem is that the time frames involved are enormous. So just because we are currently not clever enough to come up with tests able to falsify Evolution seems hardly a reason to allocate it to an area of knowledge other than science especially considering that all of its related fields of study are scientific.

But that is why I said (confusingly I admit) that favouring a definition of science (Popper's) over a description of the physical world (Darwin's) seems a bit arbituary.

Do you have a suggestion for an appropriate field of knowledge for Evolution if not Science?

I realize that you are saying it should not be taught in schools as science but you do agree that it should still be taught in schools. Don't you?

Personally, while I admire Popper enormously, his statements about science should come under scrutiny in the same way that Evolution becomes stronger and stronger as more evidence supports it as a concept.

Apart from that, evolutionary theory predicts that there should be close correspondance between the DNA shared within species if they are evolved from a common ancestor.

If there were no traces of such a correspondance, then we could falsify evolutionary theory.

Another example would be if somebody witnessed the creation of an existing species of snake out of thin air, or if somebody proved that ducks had actually come to Earth on spaceships.

To be quite honest, I think that the idea that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable is a somewhat querulous point brought up by creationists.

A top ten list from my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

1. The root of the controversy is not evolution, but Darwinism. Evolution can mean simply change within existing species, a fact that people have known for centuries. But Darwinism claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided natural processes such as random mutations and survival of the fittest – and that what appears to be design in living things is just an illusion.

2. Intelligent design is not religion, but science. Intelligent design maintains that we can infer from evidence in nature that some features of the universe and living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is not biblical creationism, but empirical science. Darwinists claim it is not scientific because it is untestable – but they also claim they have tested it and proven it wrong.

3. The evidence does not support Darwinism. First, the fossil record turns Darwin's theory upside down. Second, no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, the only possible outcomes are a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly; no Darwinian evolution. Third, comparisons of molecules such as DNA do not provide support for Darwinian theory, but lead to conflicting conclusions. Finally, no one has
ever observed the origin of even one species by Darwin’s process of variation and selection.

4. Darwinism has made no valuable contributions to biology. Darwinists boast that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," but the major disciplines of biology – including anatomy, botany, embryology, genetics, microbiology, paleontology, physiology and zoology – were founded either
before Darwin or by scientists who rejected his theory. Agriculture and medicine – the two disciplines that have provided us with the most practical benefits – owe nothing to Darwinism.

5. Biology and cosmology both provide evidence for intelligent design. The computer-like code in DNA, and the complex molecular machines inside living cells, cannot be produced by unguided processes but point to a designing intelligence. So does that fact that Earth is unusually well suited not only for life, but also for scientific discovery.

6. Darwinists do not want students to learn critical thinking. The U. S. Congress has officially endorsed teaching students "the full range of scientific views" about Darwinian evolution. Yet some public school districts that have asked their students to approach the subject with an open mind have been sued by the ACLU for unconstitutionally teaching religion – and federal judges have sided with the ACLU.

7. Darwinism corrodes traditional moral values. Some Darwinists argue that conservatives should embrace their doctrine because it provides a scientific basis for traditional morality, but Darwinism has been used historically to justify social evils such as eugenics and racism.

8. Darwinism is anti-Christian. Like Marxism, Darwinism is a materialistic philosophy that is routinely used to attack religion. Indeed, some Darwinist professors at publicly supported universities have stated that Christianity should be confined to cultural zoos and that the pope is "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." U. S. taxpayers' money is now used to promote religious denominations that favor Darwinism.

9. Darwinists are now behaving like their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. When Stalin’s government sided with Darwinists against their critics eighty years ago the result was Lysenkoism, which obstructed scientific progress for decades. Lysenkoism is now rearing its ugly head again in the U. S., as Darwinists use their government positions to destroy the careers of scientists who criticize their doctrine.

10. But the good news is that Darwinism will lose. First, Darwinists will lose because the scientific evidence is against them. Second, they will lose because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. Finally, Darwinists will lose because they are relying on a tactic always guaranteed to fail in America: censorship.

Just more hilarity than you can point a bone at. Fair dinkum, I reckon there is enough comedy material from the creationists to go on a stand up tour. Maybe Al Gore can make this his next project.

Quote:


At the bottom of this Rot was a button which said

SHOW LESS

  Oh Baldrick, if only it worked outside the internet.