Another question.

This came up in a debate.

Me: they think if they disprove evolution that it will prove creation.

theist:Technically, it would prove a form of creation, but not necessarily biblical creation. If we did not evolve naturally, then the only other option is that something made us.

Now I know it wouldn't go to "something made us" if evolution was proven wrong but what would it go to.

Evolution absolutely cannot be proven wrong. For fucks sake, doctors treating aids have to take evolution into account when giving medicine to patients. However, there are backup theories about self organizing matter etc etc.

thenormalyears wrote

Evolution absolutely cannot be proven wrong. For fucks sake, doctors treating aids have to take evolution into account when giving medicine to patients. However, there are backup theories about self organizing matter etc etc.

Well I'm just covering my bases. I know that Evolution will most likely never be proven wrong but theres nothing wrong to learn about what could come up if it was.

What if it were proven that we are all descended from flecks of shit from an intergalactic toilet brush?


Evolution will never be disproven only added to.

iam*legion wrote

This came up in a debate.

Me: they think if they disprove evolution that it will prove creation.

theist:Technically, it would prove a form of creation, but not necessarily biblical creation. If we did not evolve naturally, then the only other option is that something made us.

Now I know it wouldn't go to "something made us" if evolution was proven wrong but what would it go to.

Technically, if evolution were disproven it would go to "We don't know where the fuck we came from". Scientists would continue looking for a naturalistic origin of live, while creationists would enjoy a temporary repreive and continue to believe their dogma without any inconvenient science getting in the way (ignoring geology and cosmology, of course).

[Tenspace]

If evolution were disproven, it would, by default be replaced by whatever disproved it. But the problem is that folks don't accept that it is inherently proveable, therefore no proof offered is good enough.

Well, if the neo-Darwinian synthesis were proven to be incorrect, it's first off entirely possible that some other form of mechanistic evolution would be the case.

However, if any form of biological evolution were proven to be incorrect, I can see two different hypotheses springing to mind. (However, these two are pretty much the first two that spring to mind; that doesn't mean that there aren't other hypotheses that could be tested.) First, life as we know sprung into being as it is now. Second, life as we know it has always existed that way.
Only if the first could be demonstrated would the theist have something from which to begin a demonstration that the springing was the result of an outside force, and then they could start to demonstrate that the force was a deity, and then they could make the case that it was their particular imaginary daddy.