My aim in this thread is not to try to convert anyone from their position, or to incite anyone else to do so. However, this topic seems certain to incite a debate, so I figure I might as well start it off in GD.
So, to rephrase the question posed in the title: if you’re a creationist, what evidence could you be presented with that would convince you that the theory of evolution is an accurate model for the diversity of species on Earth?* If you provisionally accept the TOE as correct, what could convince you that special creation is correct?**
Bear in mind that the theory of evolution is NOT THE SAME as abiogenesis. Darwin’s book was entitled Origin of Species, not Origin of LIFE.
** Forgive the awkward phrasing. I avoided using the words* evolutionist, Darwinist," * and believe because accepting evolutionary position is not a religious position, and not an absolute one, as using the “ist” suffix and writing “believe” would imply.
For me, evolutionary theory is a slam dunk. The evidence for natural selection and universal common descent is so voluminous, so overwhelming, that accepting anything to the contrary seems as perverse as claiming that the daytime sky is actually pink. But if organisms violating the nested hierarchy by possessing structures completely dissimilar to anything that found in related species–mammals with gills, or birds with tentacles–were foundin nature, I’d have to rethink my position.
Basically, it would require that you convince me that the physical world we know is an illusion, or under the micromanagement of some powerful race/being. We know that organisms vary, that the variations are inheritable, and that those variation affect organisms’ ability to survive and reproduce. Given those ( rather basic ) three facts, evolution is a natural consequence; something would have to stop it.
Therefore either those three facts aren’t facts ( which would effectively require that we’re in the Matrix or something, given how basic they are ), something is stopping evolution from happening, or evolution is true.
to get me to change my mind about the current theory of evolution, I would have to see concrete evidence for some other theory.
Not “negative evidence”. Yes, there are some holes in our current theory, (i.e. not enough fossils where there should be, no good way to explain how loose chemicals in the primordial soup organized the first cell, etc). But these are negatives–things that are not yet known, but may be proven as there is more research.
The “negative” issues are based on lack of evidence, which won’t cause me to change my mind , since there is so much other evidence in favor of evolution
To change my mind, I’ll need to see “positive” issues—physical evidence, hard scientific facts that support a different theory.
silly example:Show me intelligent creatures on another planet, and how they transferred their biology to earth.
It is hard to answer without a better understanding of what you mean by evolution. In general, the evolution of new species by descent through modification and natural selection is going to be hard to disprove, since we’ve seen it happen. About the only way to disprove this is for some deity to claim that he has been fiddling with our genetic material for every newborn, and show it somehow by having generations where evolution does not happen - and what that even means is beyond me.
As for some degree of intelligent design, we’d need to see evidence of the designer. For creationism, we’d need both solid evidence of the flood and the Biblica story, direct testimony by a deity, and/or Noah’s logs. None of this is any more likely to happen as the discovery of evidence that the sun goes around the earth.
As, for the other side, creationists are as scarce as hens’ teeth around these parts, so I doubt you’ll get many answers. Doesn’t the creationist “research” society require members to agree to the following (paraphrased)
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. If those predictions are not borne out then that would be enough to convince a rational person that evolutionary theory is probably false. The wrong fossils in the wrong places will do it.
First, the basic process of selection–changes in a population’s heritable traits due to differences in the reproductive fitness of those traits–is a straight-forward mathematical model. Nothing to disprove there (it would be like trying to disprove 2+3==5).
Furthermore, the bulk of biological evidence indicates that the process of selection is the simplest explanation for the past and present diversity of life on this planet. Without unimaginable fraud, this evidence is undeniable. All life that has been scientifically studied has evolved from earlier life.
But, not all life on this planet has been catalogued. It is within the realm of possibility that some lifeform will be found that does not fit within the existing cladistic system. That lifeform could potentially prove that some life was specially created. That would not refute the fact the vast majority of life evolved. Of course, we expect even specially created lifeforms to undergo selection if it meets the criteria (heritable differences in reproductive fitness).
When life is discovered on another planet, evidence will have to be collected all over again to determine the history of life there. Just because life (to our knowledge) was not specially created on Earth, does not mean that it was not on another planet.
Yes, this also makes a clear point. Even if Evelotionary theory is shown to be incomplete, it wouldn’t lead to a reversion back to creationist theory, but instead to a new theory that combines the new information with what we allready have found out.
So a hominid fosil found amongst the fossils of Dinosaurs and all accurately dated to the same period would show the current view of evolutionary process and rate of change is wrong, but would do nothing to show creationism was instead correct.
Such a finding if well confirmed would lead to huge changes in our understanding of the order in which evolution had occured, but not in the knowledge that evolution is the reson for animal diversty.
For me? If I personally dug up a fossil of a dinosaur with a sign saying “End Nuclear Testing Now!”*
Seriously, though - short of God showing me how he did it, I don’t see it. I’ve never seen a convincing example of “special creation” that fell outside current theory, and if I did, I’d be wondering where to tinker with the theory, not throwing the whole thing out.
*10 points for the reference
It would take the same thing that caused Jake Blues to start screaming “the band!!” in the Triple Rock Baptist Church in front of Reverend Cleophus James…
…a really bright light.
Seriously, though, it’d take a VERY outward, easy sign that god says
Just to be clear, there isn’t any way to say just how many fossils we should find in any particular place, and evolution doesn’t address the issue of how life originated (only how it changed once it got started). Those aren’t holes in the theory.
As to the OP, I’d have to see some direct evidence of special creation PLUS evidence that the creator had tricked us by putting so much evidence in the earth supporting evolution by natural selection (not just the fossils, but the DNA evidence as well).
Speaking from actual personal experience of this transition, it was mostly the overwhelming weight and concordant diversity of evidence for common descent, but also the weight of evidence for a non-young universe/earth.
To make the transition back to creationism, I think I’d not only have to see all the above mentioned evidence refuted, but I’d also have to see some evidence positiviely supporting creationism. I am not holding my breath waiting.
Also note that some kinds of evidence that at first seem to argue against evolution might have other explanations.
So, finding tools among dinosaur fossils doesn’t neccesarily prove that the earth was created 6000 years ago, maybe those tools came from aliens, or intelligent dinosaurs, or time travelers.
Finding some features that argue for intelligent design doesn’t spell the death knell for evolution, it only proves that SOME features were designed. But designed by who, or what? Aliens? Intelligent dinosaurs? Disembodied intelligences of some kind? Finding ONE provably designed feature or species doesn’t throw out the fact that every other feature and species that we see was created by evolution.
Finding a giant genetics lab on the Moon, with records in some alien language about how organisms on earth were grown in vats, along with millions of tons of fossils that were grown in vats and buried would be a bit harder to explain, but it wouldn’t invalidate evolutionary theory. Once that special creation episode was over, the planted species would begin to evolve on their own. And where did the creators come from? Did they evolve or where they specially created? Maybe David Brin was right, and all intelligent life in the galaxy was uplifted from presentient species. Except what happened to our patrons?
[extreme sarcasm] “But you’re supposed to have FAITH! If you were saved, you’d SEE that the Bible MUST be true!”[/extreme sarcasm] :rolleyes:
Pretty much what everyone has already said. Either new evidence that clearly doesn’t fit the natural selection theory, or else a major reassessment of the very nature of reality
