A challenge for the creationists.

[Ben]

Once again, we have a few creationists sniping on evolution in unrelated threads. I think it’s time for another “turkeytalk challenge” to give them a chance to take their light out from under the bushel, and show us what they’ve got.

My challenge is this: provide scientific evidence to support the idea of special creation of individual kinds. (i.e., the idea that God created a number of fully-formed “kinds” by magically making the organisms appear out of thin air, as opposed to the idea that new species form as a result of gradual modifications of old species.)

Let me make the usual warning about this kind of challenge. If you try to hijack this thread with irrelevant arguments- and IME there are invariably creationists who do so- I will take that as an outright admission that you are utterly unable to meet the challenge.

[PatriotX]

IME?

[Patty_O_Furniture]

In my experience.

[ImNotMad2]

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusuin instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Vol 2, 6th ed., p.49.

[Ben]

your point being?

[andros]

Not to take anything away from your OP, Ben, which I think is a wonderful, if somewhat quixotic endeavor, I’d just like to take this opportunity to say I really miss seeing David B around.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by ImNotMad2 *

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusuin instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Vol 2, 6th ed., p.49.

“It has been asserted over and over again, by writers who believe in the immutability of species, that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion, as we shall see in the next chapter, is certainly erroneous. As Sir J. Lubbock has remarked, “Every species is a link between other allied forms.” If we take a genus having a score of species, recent and extinct, and destroy four-fifths of them, no one doubts that the remainder will stand much more distinct from each other. If the extreme forms in the genus happen to have been thus destroyed, the genus itself will stand more distinct from other allied genera. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species. But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., Chapter 10, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”, p.428.

[bolding mine]

Quote-mining may be a hoot, but quoting in context is even more fun!

[coax]

Please forgive me if I’ve missunderstood the OP, but.
If God is a supernatural being, and then inherently outside of the laws of nature, how can we provide scientific proof that he did created such a thing?

Maybe that’s the whole point of your OP?
Heh.

[E-Sabbath]

Ah, but if you examine the thread on Supernatural Events, there is no such thing as a supernatural event.

[Ben]

If they want to claim that creationism is science, then they have their chance to prove it.

If they want to believe it on faith, fine- just don’t get smug at people who believe in evolution.

[iampunha]

I have to say that attempting to quote Darwin to disprove Evolution is one of the more amusing things I’ve seen all year.

[Mangetout]

If I may interject, I think it would be helpful if any creationist who wishes to respond begins by defining ‘kind’ (in the sense in which it appears in the Bible - I’ve seen a lot of ducking and weaving, misdirection and blustering, but never a clear definition - it seems like it is variously defined as broadly or as narrowly as required by the argument it is trying to support.

[Inoshiro]

*Originally posted by ImNotMad2 *
**Darwin quotage… **

And creationists love to hark back to Darwin don’t they. As if no one has said anything else on the subject in 150 years. Gould? Dawkins anyone?

[ImNotMad2]

Originally posted by Ben
your point being?

That the fossil record supports the idea of special creation of individual kinds. I know you get this argument in every creation vs. evolution debate that you participate in, so I fully expect that you have a reply, ready for the cut & paste. Since I usually tend to avoid the threads that contain the word ‘evolution’ in the title, I must admit that I am not in the know of your typical response. With that said, Darwin’s Finch was about to give a response from Darwin himself.

*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch *

“It has been asserted over and over again, by writers who believe in the immutability of species, that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion, as we shall see in the next chapter, is certainly erroneous. As Sir J. Lubbock has remarked, “Every species is a link between other allied forms.” If we take a genus having a score of species, recent and extinct, and destroy four-fifths of them, no one doubts that the remainder will stand much more distinct from each other. If the extreme forms in the genus happen to have been thus destroyed, the genus itself will stand more distinct from other allied genera. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species. But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., Chapter 10, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”, p.428.

[bolding mine]

So, I presume he does go on “in the next chapter” to explain why “this ought not to be expected”?

[Ben]

I guess I don’t understand your argument. How does a (nonexistent) lack of transitional fossils serve as evidence for special creation? The absolute best you could hope to demonstrate is that the fossil record doesn’t support common descent.

[ImNotMad2]

*Originally posted by Ben *
If they want to claim that creationism is science…

Just curious, Ben, how you would describe science.

[Ben]

While we’re at it, could you explain in detail which creationist model you’re arguing for? I’ll understand your position better if you spell it out.

[Ben]

If creationism is science, then creationists can use the scientific method. Present your hypothesis, show how the evidence supports it, and show us how it meets the criterion of Popperian falsifiability.

I put in the “science” stipulation to keep out all the people who would say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” or who would march into the Great Epistemological Quagmire by turning this thread into a debate over whether faith is as valid as reason.

[ImNotMad2]

*Originally posted by Ben *
If creationism is science, then creationists can use the scientific method. Present your hypothesis, show how the evidence supports it, and show us how it meets the criterion of Popperian falsifiability.

Then perhaps we should make a distinction between operations science and origin science, since I suspect you know as well as I that creationism is no more falsifiable than is macroevolution.

[tomndebb]

since I suspect you know as well as I that creationism is no more falsifiable than is macroevolution.

Not exactly. Creationism is not falsifiable, but evolution (micro, macro, or just plain) is falsifiable–and has stood the test.