Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshfraser | Hacker News Reader

Science is all about observation and repeatable experiments. When it comes to the question of how we got here, both creationist and evolutionists have the daunting task of convincing us to believe in an extraordinary tale with very little supporting evidence on either side. Either you believe a supreme being willed the world into existence or you believe that fish turned into people -- when you boil them down, both explanations are quite implausible. It seems fair to me that teachers would tell their students "Obviously we weren't around to witness the origin of the planet, but here are a couple theories people have on how we got here..."

View on HN

> Science is all about observation and repeatable experiments.

True.

> When it comes to the question of how we got here, both creationist and evolutionists have the daunting task of convincing us to believe in an extraordinary tale with very little supporting evidence on either side.

There's vast amounts of supporting evidence for both the general applicability of the mechanisms theorized to underlie the process of evolution, and the specific theories about the ways it worked in bringing about the current diversity of species.

> Either you believe a supreme being willed the world into existence or you believe that fish turned into people -- when you boil them down, both explanations are quite implausible.

Well, except that while creationism does hold that a supreme being willed the world into existence, evolution does not hold that "fish turned into people".

> It seems fair to me that teachers would tell their students "Obviously we weren't around to witness the origin of the planet, but here are a couple theories people have on how we got here..."

Creationism is a "theory" as that word is used in some non-scientific contexts, but it is not, unlike evolution, a "theory" as the term is used in scientific contexts.

In the case of creationism, you're only vapidly correct. There's a geologic record, stratigraphy, and a fossil record that have to be accounted for. Simply put, no variation on creationism can account for all of those things. I don't see how some obvious creation myth, no matter how powerful the backers, can be taught with a straight face, much less in public school.

As far as intelligent design, I'll agree to teaching that, as long as we follow up on the consequences. First, what criteria can I apply on my own to decide whether a biological feature (the vertebrate eye, for example) is irreducibly complex? Second, what does the existence of intelligent design have to say about theology and the various hagiographies? Does ID make monotheism or polytheism more likely for example? Can we determine characteristics of God or gods based on examples of Design?

There are plenty of observational sciences, astronomy and geology and economics among them. What you wrote is hackneyed and untrue.

I think you're reacting to a lot more than what I actually said. The indisputable fact is that you and I weren't there and it's impossible to prove either intelligent design or evolution because neither is reproducible.

>>it's impossible to prove either intelligent design or evolution because neither is reproducible.

I don't even know where to begin..... If that was the case science could tell us nothing about anything that isn't perfectly reproducible.

OK. I admit defeat. But explain the geological column and the fossil record in terms of something other than a specific religion's creation story.

You're focussing too much on reproducibility, as I said.

You would give theories more or less weight as supported by evidence, right.

I will wait here for supporting evidence of creationism. Patiently. For billions of years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com