Robert Byers #fundie

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

Of coarse evolution and all historical sciences can't be testable in most or all aspects. This should be self evident.
Yes the past is open to deduction from clues like a crime scene however the scientific method can not be applied to the big conclusions.
All one needs to pay attention to is whether the scientific method can and is applied.

This is why it seems every graduating class turns over some previously solid idea in evolution . Like PE.
Its easy when the original ideas had no tests to back themselves up.
Origin subjects are always about interpretation and then accumulation of data.
Just read carefully the posts here in this thread and you will see all the tests are based on premises themselves. Like fossil sequence and DNA stuff.
In the end origin subjects unlike laws of gravity can not be directly, repeatably tested. Origin subjects are like crime scenes. Here you will find the evolutionists are intel;igent, hard working Scotland Yard detectives. The creationists are Sherlock Holmes. Correcting and correct.

35 comments

old comment by demodocos

"the ideal reasoner," he (Sherlock Holmes, ed.) remarked, "would, when he had once been shown a single fact in all its bearings, deduce from it not only all the chain of events which led up to it but also all the results which would follow from it. As Cuvier could correctly describe a whole animal by the contemplation of a single bone, so the observer who has thoroughly understood one link in a series of incidents should be able to accurately state all the other ones, both before and after. We have not yet grasped the results which the reasoner alone can attain to. Problems may be solved in the study which have baffled all those who have sought a solution by the aid of their senses. To carry the art, however, to its highest pitch, it is necessary that the reasoner should be able to utilize all the facts which have come to his knowledge; and this in itself implies, as you will readily see, a possession of all knowledge, which, even in these days of free education and encyclopedias, is a somewhat rare accomplishment. It is not impossible, however, that a man should possess all knowledge which is likely to be useful to him in his work, and this I have endeavoured in my case to do".

-- Arthur Conan Doyle --

Sherlock Holmes a creationist? Methinks not.

Correction: while there will always be directions and details where science will explore and learn and apply its self-correcting processes, it is unlikely for well established facts supported by overwhelming evidence to suddenly be discovered to be completely false and irrelevant. Especially when the alternative is incredible ingnorance and an ancient origin myth. Uncertainty propaganda may work to indoctrinate some people, but will never change the scientific consensus. To change it, you need to provide better explanations that account for all existing knowledge on the topic, to publish your method and evidence in the relevant peer-reviewed journals and for other scientists to evaluate and replicate your work. The way science already works, even if you falsely pretend that its conclusions are ideologically motivated and dictated, a fallacious projection of religion, your own business.

For instance, when the genetic code was discovered, a new scientific theory of evolution was needed, the Modern Synthesis, taking into account the incredible new evidence and data, something that Darwin had no access to when writing The Origin of Species. Unlike for "holy prophets", Darwin did not dictate a creed preventing knowledge to improve. Phylogenetic trees have been updated, new evidence of common descent with modification was discovered, new details about how speciation happens, etc. The new information did not falsify the tested hypothesis, the fact, that we have evolved, it only confirmed it further.

To deny that evolution is a well established fact, you are pushing false conspiracy theories about science and scientists, like that they would be ignoring important evidence, when your arguments have long been refuted, or are outright ignored, considered irrelevant. Again, preaching to crowds will not affect a scientific consensus based on evidence. But it may mislead the gullible, the motive behind creationist indoctrination efforts (other than the fear of death).

SSJPunk's comment is epic.