Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:13 pm

<< Week of August 27, 2016 >>
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
27 Day Month

28 Day Month

29 Day Month

30 Day Month

31 Day Month

1 Day Month

2 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Ch. 6 - Neocreationism 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15184
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2934
Thanked: 1143 times in 906 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Ch. 6 - Neocreationism
Let's use this thread to discuss Chapter 6 - Neocreationism. ;)




Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:45 pm
Profile Email WWW


Post Re: Ch. 6 - Neocreationism
The three arguments of neocreationism seem to be the Abrupt Appearance Theory, which I had never heard of until reading this book, irreducible complexity, and complex specified information.

It strikes me as odd that people consider this Neo-creationism, because I don't really see anything new in these arguments, aside from a blatant down-playing of the religious motivations.

The abrupt appearance theory seems to be more of a philosophical view than a scientific one. It is true that all the evidence we have for an old Earth can be reconciled with "abrupt appearance". Hell, it is feasible to argue that the world just appeared right now, and all your memories are an illusion. This is of course compatible with the evidence, but it doesn't really make any predictions that could be tested. Meanwhile, old Earth theories make a lot more testable assumptions and it certainly coheres with our observations better.

As far as irreducible complexity goes, I think this is probably the easiest argument to refute. The problem with the argument is that Behe assumes the function of an organic structure must remain constant. For instance, in his mousetrap example, he assumes the function must be to catch mice, but he doesn't entertain the possibility of a mousetrap having a part removed and yet still having the ability to serve another function! Perhaps it could be used as a paper weight with the spring missing? Also, like Scott mentions, people have been very creative in showing how a mousetrap could still continue to catch mice with some of its parts missing!

I think the scaffolding response also does well to throw doubts on Behe's criticism. The fact that an organ is irreducibly complex doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. Rather, it means it couldn't have evolved while utilizing the same function, and without any extra "scaffolding" parts. Unfortunately for Behe, most evolutionary changes involve a change of function (just look at how jaw bones in reptiles were later used for hearing in mammals!) and have scaffolding parts that are later removed as their purpose is used up.

I was not too familiar with Dembski's idea of complex specified information, and I would have liked more details on his stance, but from Scott's outline it seems rather awful. The fact that it would give false positives is surely a damning criticism, and his "design inference" seems to infer design in many situations where this is simply not the case at all.

These are all arguments focusing on "disproving" some tenet of science, with the assumption that doing so paves the way for a more credible belief in God. Of course, disproving evolution or the age of the Earth would be just as supportive of belief in fairies as it would be for belief in God--which is to say that it does not logically support such beliefs at all.




Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:19 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank