Monday, May 20, 2013

Hunting for Creationism - The Ground Rules

I don't think I'm quite done with Simmon's "What Darwin Didn't Know" (2004). but I certainly am done with it for the moment. I've had enough hole-poking in evolutionary theory. Right now, I'm itching for any actual evidence supporting creationism and/or intelligent design.

Before I begin - and this is going to be an ongoing series -I'd like to set some ground rules, and a mission statement, for what I'm about to do.


My mission is to find positively supporting scientific evidence that people are offering in favor of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design (hereby C/ID), if any.

In addition, any qualifying evidence will be vetted to see how well it explains the available data, and whether it's contradicted by available data.

Ground Rules 

I'm going to take the time to explain what the qualifications are, and why. I think this is important to head off objections that I'm just dismissing evidence for invalid reasons.

Positive Evidence

I spent a post explaining positive and negative evidence (link), and why positive evidence is the valuable type. Whatever evidence is provided must directly and positively support C/ID.

As an addendum, for the sake of argument, I'm going to agree that evolution has been completely falsified. Disproving evolution, however, provides exactly zero positive evidence for creationism, because it's not a true dichotomy between evolution and C/ID. Any attacks on evolution will thereby be irrelevant, and thus disqualified.


This should go without saying, but the evidence must be logically valid and sound. Meaning, it must not employ any logical fallacies, the conclusion must logically lead from the premises, and the premises must be demonstrably true.

This may apply both for establishing the evidence, as well as the evidence's application to a broader case supporting C/ID.

Standards of Evidence

The evidence must qualify against a basic standards of evidence (link to where I detail this). Within the linked post, I listed out and described why each standard is critically important. 

As an addendum, the more direct the evidence, the better. For instance, demonstrating that the Earth is young (as opposed to old) doesn't necessarily demonstrate that creationism happened... it demonstrates that the Earth is young. It'd be more productive to demonstrate that the DNA was designed, for instance.


We'll see how this goes. I can say right off the bat that "well the Bible says that creationism is true, and we've verified that some cities mentioned in the Bible are true, so that's evidence for creationism" isn't going to fly... which is an argument I suspect I'll see a lot (or ones like it). It's an association fallacy, basically. 

No comments:

Post a Comment