Does disproving evolution prove creationism?

Question

I had promised myself to step back from the evolution / creationism argument, but with so many devotees of drdino.com and harunyahya.com out there, it really begs the question:

For the sake of argument, let's say that evidence is found that completely, inarguably demolishes the concept of evolution. Does that prove creationism? Does that oblige us to believe in creationism? Or, does it just put us again back at square one, with no valid hypothesis about the origin of species?

Can you prove your theory by disproving an alternate theory?

Is there any way to prove/demonstrate creationism without referencing evolution?

I'm so happy with the answers I've seen so far! You've renewed my faith in the human mind!

Serendipity has allowed my point to be proven as my question was bombarded atr the last minute by a Christian cut-and-paster and a Muslim cut-and-paster. If you can bear it, try to read through their arguments (face it, you know they haven't even read them themselves) and find a single sentence that actually _proves_ Creationism. You will not, because you cannot.

But that's not the point. The point is that their entire argument is to hack away with a small axe at the large tree of modern biology with the implicit suggestion that a hole in the modern biological understanding of the origin of species must - by necessity - be filled with creationism. That is such a fallacious either/or argument as to be truly disturbing.

Looking through the answers given by hutsong and smiling4ever222 reminds me why I promised myself to stay out of this debate - it's so remarkably saddening. These people build a wall of semi-coherent words and hide behind them whenever possible. Like trolls, the bombard anybody who uses the word 'evolution' mercilessly with the same cut-and-paste documents as if that approaches adult debate... I'm starting to believe that the only kind of person who relies on other people's opinions is the one who has none of his own...

Answer 1

Only if the evidence that disproved evolution proved creationism. I would guess you mean biblical creationism because some deity starting the process of evolution would be a form of creation...just not that in the bible. So creationism and evolution can coexist as long as it isn't literal biblical creationism.

But, if we found some evidence that disproved evolution completely (which would be highly unlikely considering all the evidence that backs up the theory) that would just knock us back to not having a good theory for how life developed on earth.

Disproving one theory does not automatically validate the other. They both could be wrong.

Creationism/ID could be demonstrated if someone were able to show that organisms are irreducibly complex...but then someone could use evolution to show that they aren't (or if evolution in this scenario were not an option there are numerous philosophical holes in the argument involving irreducible complexity)

Answer 2

Creationists use a "red herring" argument and it is fallacious.

They attempt to use evolution as a red herring as if by disproving evolution, it would somehow magically prove creationism.

Evolution is proven each time a baby is born. Plants, rocks, water, and other animals all participate in the evolutionary process of producing a unique life form, a baby.

Fertilizing an egg is just one tiny step in the overall process of various life forms evolving into another life form.

But, irrespective of that, creationism is nonsense because it claims complexity is proof the universe was created by a creator that was not created.

Answer 3

yes, i know the sentiments. The biggest question that we humans have,"where do we originate from", reaches on YahooAnswers never a higher level than "Hey, it's not God who did it, silly" versus "Tsk, tsk, who gives you the right to call me a monkey?". It's a complete empty debate, and the full debate seems to be about disproving eachothers points, to make our own point valid. And of course, as you stated in your almost rethorical question, that is an invalid manner of argueing.

Actually, i think both are wrong. The true answer of where we come from, is probably by far not discovered. What we know now is more than 30 years ago, more than 300 years ago, and much more than 3000 years ago. But we are still in complete emptyness almost.

So, where do we come from? Anything is possible. And that feels great!

Answer 4

Creationists seem to get upset if someones says humans evolved from ape, but have no problem saying humans were made out of dirt.

Very few species on this planet rape females and kill their own kind especially females of their own kind and I just cant see humans being the exception to the rule. Especially since we know that primeapes that rape, including humans only adopted the behavior after a severe drought. Only two species out of the primapes rape and commit war. The common chimp and man.

Answer 5

Nope, if we find out that evolution is completely false tommarow, creationism won't suddenly become true, it will remain false as well. That's like saying - You can't prove that god doesn't exists, that means he does!

If evolution was found to be false, yes, we would be back at square one, or whatever square we know for sure is fact.

Answer 6

i personally believe in creationism and my proof is solely based on faith. but this arguement will exist until the end of times so i don't argue about it i just accept that there are people who don't believe as i do and i leave it at that

Answer 7

i dont disproving one proves the other, you have to believe in god to believe creationism. I dont, so even if evolution is disproved, i wont believe in creationism. its really a question of science vs. faith.

Answer 8

Great question Ed! Unfortunately, I don't think too many of the creationists out there will grasp it.

Answer 9

if its disproved it still means that you have to prove creationism. doesnt mean coz something isnt proved that it isnt true, still gotta disprove it right?

Answer 10

S C R E W me!