If evolution is disproved, does that prove creationism?

Question

This just came about from another question I asked, so I'm curious, with the fundamental Christians that feel a need to disprove evolution, when it is disproved, will this somehow prove creationism is right?

Can something be right by default, with no scientific evidence to prove it?

Answer 1

what is interesting to me is that science "defines" and "confines" itself.

It sets it's parameters and rules, and none other is acceptable.

when believers do this, we are called "fundamentalists" in a derogatory way.

evolutionists and atheists are just as "fundamental" and intransigent as any believer. your dogmas are as stuck as the religious right.

evolution is disproved. mendel's law succinctly sets the parameters for mutations and evolution.

there will always be a missing link, because what was here before us is gone, and we are a new "heaven and earth".

why do 10% of the population think 90% believe their bs?

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?
name=News&new_topic=26



One of the most important aspects of the Creation/Evolution debate is the definition of “science.” It is generally assumed that there is one definition of science but this is simply not true. In fact there are many definitions of science and an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to the study of the definition of science. Even so, it is critical to learn to distinguish between two very different types of sciences, Operational Science and Historical Science (or what is often called Origin Science). The dramatic confusion that most people have (perhaps including many science teachers) concerning the creation/evolution debate can be traced to a lack of understanding the distinction between these two sciences. Let’s begin with a basic definition of each and then observe how much this distinction affects our understanding of the issues.

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.

Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.

A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events are all past events that are not observable.

Often pro-evolution debaters will ridicule Creation by comparing it to a now debunked theory in the operational sciences. A common example of this is the theory that the earth is flat. [1] This is a false comparison because we can test to see if the earth is round or flat by flying into space and observing it, but we cannot observe the formation of the earth because that was a one time event in the past.

This does not mean that historical sciences are all bunk. Historical sciences do use scientific methods to try to understand past events, but it is critical to keep in mind that there are always assumptions built into these methods. If the assumptions are wrong, then the theory’s conclusions are probably wrong as well. For example, radiometric dating methods [2] are often used to date the age of rocks but all of these dating methods have two important assumptions – the amount of material being measured started with a particular amount when the rock was first formed and the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same. These are two very big assumptions that are virtually unknowable and yet these methods are used to “prove” the age of the rock. In actuality, they are not capable of proving anything because the underlying assumptions are un-provable.

Assumptions can be likened to faith. A creationist assumes (has faith) that God created the earth and an evolutionist assumes (has faith) that random chance created the earth. An assumption is a belief that is based on something that cannot be proved. Assumptions are used to help interpret facts that do not have a clear meaning. For example, evolutionists look at rock layers they find in the ground and because they assume, believe, or have faith in the idea that the earth is very, very old they interpret the fact that there are layers in the earth to mean that they were laid down over long periods of time. However, a creationist can take that same fact, that there are layers of rock in the earth, and because he or she assumes, believes, or has faith in the idea of a young earth can interpret the layers as being laid down quickly during the flood of Noah. However, if an assumption is wrong then the conclusion will most likely be wrong as well.

Assumptions are fundamental in Historical Sciences. Because a historical event cannot be recreated and observed, there will always be assumptions built into any theory about that historical event. Therefore we can see that in the Creation/Evolution debate nobody has proven anything about the origin of the Earth, life, and man. There are basic assumptions being made on both sides of the argument which cannot be definitively proven.

So then, how do you know what is the truth when it comes to history? By testing the interpretations to see if they hold up. For example, most evolutionists believe that life evolves through a process of random genetic mutation and natural selection, [3] but after nearly a hundred years of breeding experiments to see if random genetic mutation (often sped up through the use of radiation) can produce new genetic information and subsequently new genetic features, testing has thoroughly shown that random genetic mutations do not produce new genetic information. As a Christian then, how do I test my assumptions about the Bible and what it has to say about the origin of life? There are certainly scientists doing research and experiments that give credence to the claims of the Bible but even as a Christian who is not a scientist I can test my assumptions about the Bible. By applying the Bible’s lessons in my life I can see whether or not the fruit promised in the Bible comes to pass, if it does then I have evidence that the Bible is true.

Understanding the difference between historical and operational science helps to clear up some of the confusion in the Creation/Evolution debate. The origin of life on earth and the origin of all species of animals and plants are historical events. They cannot be observed. Any conclusions we draw about how these events occurred will depend on assumptions that we must make. If our assumptions are wrong then our conclusions are wrong. The underlying assumption of Creation is that there is a God. The underlying assumption of Evolution is that there is no God. Which assumption do you believe?

Answer 2

Certainly I do not think that disproving evolution proves creationism is true.

What are some other credible or based on belief, whatever...theories of how we "happened"? If we disprove evolution and some people cannot except creation then what....is it back to square one, find another credible answer...because I do not see us giving up finding an answer or proving one theory or another true.

Fundamental evolution is full of holes...but not totally. Fundamental creationism is full of holes...but not totally.

Is there any in between (I already think there is, lol, but I have believed that long before I was involved here...and its NOT Intelligent Design which is just a cop out phrase for all sides).

The Skeptical Christian, JPO
Grace and Peace
PEG

Answer 3

Ok, imagine that you and another person are suspected of a crime. The police do an investigation and finally they realize that the other person could not have committed the crime.

They then send you off to prison.

Why? Well, they had two suspects and one was no longer a suspect. By the logic you present, that means the remaining suspect had to be guilty. Last man standing logic or something, I guess.

What you would want is an investigation and some research done in the case. If you were innocent then you would not go to prison, however, if you were guilty then there should be some proof.

The same goes for creationism. There needs to be logical evidence to support it before science can ever claim that it is real. There is no evidence to support creationism. A lot of christians skip that little part when they want it taught in schools as science.

Answer 4

I don't know that the theory of evolution has been dis-proved, I don't think it has been proved either.

The reason we talk about Creationism and Evolution is the same sentence is because Evolution is the theory that was put forward as an alternative explanation for how this all came about - How we became human.

At this point, the common thread in both is that in order to believe in either one, it takes faith. One has faith in Evolution and another has faith in a Creator. Faith is defined as believing or trusting in the evidence. One says the other is wrong and vice versa. Each side has its own evidence that the other side discounts or tries to explain away using their own biased point of view.

This is a question that will only be resolved one individual at a time.

I personally have faith in God as the creator of all things, seen and unseen, based upon the evidence He has provided to back up His claim.

Answer 5

Some people believe so.

Science is a systematic study of the world through observation and experiment.

Arguing against natural laws and processes cannot validate another stance. Proving one man is innocent of a particular murder does not find the true the killer.

The natural world should not be at odds with faith. It is simply the mechanics of the world. Why would a maker of a complex universe not be able to convey this mechanics without illogic? And, why do some people find it necessary to attack scientific evidence instead of keeping their faith focused on what matters: peace, love, helping the needy, and feeding the poor?

Answer 6

Well lets put it like so, people are gonna believe what they want to no what has scientific evidence. some believe that we were all once apes and monkeies i would like to think that you would rather be made by some force of goodness rather be kin to some four legged kritter that pees on grass and eats bugs and their own feces. no matter what people are going to belive in some form of God or just not belive in antything at all.Dont get me wrong i think when people hear that evoltion is disproved some will start to belive in a higher power, but if some unfortunate soul finds some possible way to disprove Christanity some will lose thier faith, but if that is so they were not strong belivers `

Answer 7

The theory of evolution is just that a theory it can't be proved or disproved same thing with creation, although there is a lot of credibility behind the Big Bang theory as Albert Einstein was behind it and everyone knows he was the ultimate genius.

Answer 8

Creationism isn't the mathematical opposite of evolution. Disproving the fact that organisms change over time will not prove that a magical sky daddy created self-replicating molecules.

Creationism doesn't even address what evolution does! It talks about a supernatural abiogenesis. Evolution discusses what happens after the abiogenesis (supernatural or not).

Answer 9

I would have to see how it is proved wrong... one would have to explain the reason there is so much evidence that it is right, along with whatever hypothetical proves it wrong. it would have to be some kind of trick by some extremely powerful group of people or beings, i guess.

you would then be left with 1) the earth has always existed, 2) the earth does not exist or 3) the earth was created. or 4) the earth was created by something.

Answer 10

Not really, for the most part. Only an already established fact can remain a fact after another alternative fact is presented and disproved. Creationism isn't fact - it is a belief.

Answer 11

No. Just another fallacious theory will have been debunked. Every ancient culture has some kind of idea about how we all got here, and they think they have proof.

God created every natural thing on this earth. This is Truth, and our senses cannot disprove it.