1) Theories cannot be proven 2) Theories CAN be disproven 3) creationism has been disproven
Therefore: even if evolution is disproven, creationism will still be wrong.
I'm guessing that 3 will hit a few hot buttons, so let me define what I think creationism is: The world and universe was created by a supreme being who goes by the name of "God" or "Yawheh" or "YWHW" (not sure of the spelling on the last one).
Despite Stephen J Gould's grandstanding, punctuated equilibrium is just an incremental change to Darwinism. He reminds me of Katz sometimes: "I've got an idea. It must be revolutionary!" As for other ideas, most of them fall under the same category. Other than Lamarkism and other things like that that have been proven to be false, that is.
Sigh You're missing the point of evolution. It isn't pure randomness. The randomness of genetic variation and mutation just creates a population that can be selected from. For a good refutation of this, and many other creationist arguments, read Dawkins ("Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Selfish Gene") or for something a bit more philosophical, Daniel C. Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". The truth is that Neo-darwinism is on great scientific ground. The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong.
I have to totally agree with this. I live in a city (Vancouver) where the planners refused to put a freeway to the downtown core. As a direct result of this, people live downtown by choice, and the real estate and rental prices there are sky high. There are no places I'd be afraid to walk around in in the day, and only one or two that worry me at night (and I'm pretty timid:P). Basically, we've avoided the problem of having a city consisting of suburbs surrounding a burnt-out core.
For a fascinating discussion of this, and other problems/realities in suburban North America, check out "An Empire Wilderness". The author (Kaplan, I think) makes a lot of the same points you did (perhaps you've read it?) and provides copious references and examples.
I've gotta agree with this one. I hated failing students. The worst was adding up all the marks on their finals (I marked questions individually, so I didn't keep track as I went along) and watching them hover around 45%. Too low to bump up, but high enough to be painful
Is it just me, or did the article make it sound like all of the students who took the course fail? Where I taught, you'd have to be pretty sure of yourself to try that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me restate that:
1) Theories cannot be proven
2) Theories CAN be disproven
3) creationism has been disproven
Therefore:
even if evolution is disproven, creationism will still be wrong.
I'm guessing that 3 will hit a few hot buttons, so let me define what I think creationism is:
The world and universe was created by a supreme being who goes by the name of "God" or "Yawheh" or "YWHW" (not sure of the spelling on the last one).
Brant
Despite Stephen J Gould's grandstanding, punctuated equilibrium is just an incremental change to Darwinism. He reminds me of Katz sometimes: "I've got an idea. It must be revolutionary!" As for other ideas, most of them fall under the same category. Other than Lamarkism and other things like that that have been proven to be false, that is.
Brant
Sigh
You're missing the point of evolution. It isn't pure randomness. The randomness of genetic variation and mutation just creates a population that can be selected from. For a good refutation of this, and many other creationist arguments, read Dawkins ("Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Selfish Gene") or for something a bit more philosophical, Daniel C. Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". The truth is that Neo-darwinism is on great scientific ground. The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong.
Brant
I have to totally agree with this. I live in a city (Vancouver) where the planners refused to put a freeway :P). Basically, we've avoided the problem of having
to the downtown core. As a direct result of this, people live downtown by choice, and the real estate and
rental prices there are sky high. There are no places I'd be afraid to walk around in in the day, and only
one or two that worry me at night (and I'm pretty timid
a city consisting of suburbs surrounding a burnt-out core.
For a fascinating discussion of this, and other problems/realities in suburban North America,
check out "An Empire Wilderness". The author (Kaplan, I think) makes a lot of the same points you did
(perhaps you've read it?) and provides copious references and examples.
Anyways, check it out.
Brant
Is it just me, or did the article make it sound like all of the students who took the course fail? Where I taught, you'd have to be pretty sure of yourself to try that one.
Brant