How do you refute this creationist argument?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Today I was at the library shelving books. As I was shelving one of them, I stopped for a moment as I realized I had a creationist book in my hand. I opened and started reading.

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

 

[Megalodon]

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

Nylonase.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Today I was at the library shelving books. As I was shelving one of them, I stopped for a moment as I realized I had a creationist book in my hand. I opened and started reading.

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

To test evolution, you only have to look for a gap in the fossil record and make prediction of the characteristics of the creature that would fill that gap. Then when a candidate is found in the right geological strata, it is examined and the prediction is tested against the fossil. "Tiktaalik" is a recent case in point.

 

[Dunstan]

If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

I think you put your finger on the problem. There's a little bait and switch going on with respect to what must be testable.

Scientists don't "reject" creationism because no one has replicated Genesis in a laboratory. They reject it because depending on the version of creationism, it generates either predictions that have proven false ("all animals were created in their present form about 6,000 years ago," "humans do not share ancestry with other living creatures"), or generates "predictions" that aren't falsifiable under any circumstances ("life forms appear too perfectly designed to be the product of evolution; any parts that don't appear perfectly designed are simply part of a plan too complex for us to figure out").

ETA: As the other posts show, the theory of evolution has generated many, many predictions that could have been falsified, but were in fact confirmed by the evidence.

If science required that a theory be experimentally replicable in its entirety, than it wouldn't just be evolution in trouble. We wouldn't be "allowed" to have theories of how mountain ranges, planets, stars, or galaxies form.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My favorite response to "gaps in the fossil record":

Please show me fossils of every single ancestor between you and Adam. Otherwise I'll have to assume that aliens brought you here last Thursday.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

Point out that evolution does indeed make testable hypotheses, but creationism does not.

For example, it hypothesizes that no creature like a crocoduck should exist, and no evidence of such a thing has been found (contrary to the strawman arguments creationists use that says the theory of evolution by natural selection would predict such a thing). It successfully predicted the discovery of fossil evidence of any number of intermediate forms.

Also, speciation has been observed, if that's the standard they're pushing. (However, observing speciation isn't necessary to accept evolution, since there are multiple lines of evidence that support evolution.)

 

[Eyeron]

I'd like to bring this set of videos:



This is the first part of a series of videos.

Essentially the are called Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. They address all the disinfo creationists spread about evolution.

There are fifteen parts, and each part save part fifteen is ten minutes long. Part fifteen is split into two parts and each part is ten minutes long, for a total of 160 minutes.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

First, I'd point out that scientists can test creationism, unless creationists are allowed to add endless ad hoc supernatural hypotheses to protect their belief system (which they do). This is why scientists reject creationism as false.

Then I'd point out that evolution can be tested by comparing its predictions to observation, the same way we test every other scientific proposition. This is why scientists accept evolution as true.

For more information, see my article on [swiki]Evolution and Falsification[/swiki], and indeed all my other SkepticWiki articles on the evidence for evolution.

 

[Hybrid]

If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

We have seen experimental evidence for evolution, take a gander over at (EDIT: It seems I cant post links, search for Experimental_evolution on Wikipedia) for a summary of the field. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, the book itself is largely a more in depth overview of the field (at least what I have read so far). I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning about the details of evolutionary theory.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Thank you for your responses. They have filled in the gap in my mind. I will also check out the video posted.

I think there's nothing like reading what the "other side" has to say, to test that every part of our arguments hold water. I'm thinking maybe obtain this or a similar book so I can continue testing such knowledge.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thank you for your responses. They have filled in the gap in my mind. I will also check out the video posted.

I think there's nothing like reading what the "other side" has to say, to test that every part of our arguments hold water. I'm thinking maybe obtain this or a similar book so I can continue testing such knowledge.

Donald Prothero's "What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" deals with the creationist claims regarding evolution most thoroughly. Richard Dawkin's latest book updates that in a more layman-friendly fashion.

 

[ctamblyn]

We have seen experimental evidence for evolution, take a gander over at (EDIT: It seems I cant post links, search for Experimental_evolution on Wikipedia) for a summary of the field. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, the book itself is largely a more in depth overview of the field (at least what I have read so far). I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning about the details of evolutionary theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

 

[MattusMaximus]

Today I was at the library shelving books. As I was shelving one of them, I stopped for a moment as I realized I had a creationist book in my hand. I opened and started reading.

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.
How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

Here's a great link on this. It'll take quite awhile to read through it all, but at each stage of evidence is listed a method for testing (and potentially falsifying) various aspects of evolution.

 

[skeptsci]

I think you put your finger on the problem. There's a little bait and switch going on with respect to what must be testable.

Scientists don't "reject" creationism because no one has replicated Genesis in a laboratory. They reject it because depending on the version of creationism, it generates either predictions that have proven false ("all animals were created in their present form about 6,000 years ago," "humans do not share ancestry with other living creatures"), or generates "predictions" that aren't falsifiable under any circumstances ("life forms appear too perfectly designed to be the product of evolution; any parts that don't appear perfectly designed are simply part of a plan too complex for us to figure out").

ETA: As the other posts show, the theory of evolution has generated many, many predictions that could have been falsified, but were in fact confirmed by the evidence.

If science required that a theory be experimentally replicable in its entirety, than it wouldn't just be evolution in trouble. We wouldn't be "allowed" to have theories of how mountain ranges, planets, stars, or galaxies form.

Excellent response!!!
Also, there were actual experiments done such as those with the white to black to white again moth in Britain. Also, evolution theory has an extremely powerful explanation ability of thousands of biological observations from the molecular level up to the whole organism and species. It's the main theory in this respect of the whole life sciences field. Any comparison with creationism is absurd.

 

[Travis]

Aside from the fact that there are experiments for one and not the other, as others pointed out, even if that were not the case it would still be illogical to conclude that the equal untestability of two hypothesis makes them equally probable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

I think Dunstan nailed the basic deception in the argument on the head. I would also add that the second very glaring flaw in the argument is that evolutionary theory *is* in fact testable at the micro evolutionary level in the standard empirical manner. In fact it has already been demonstrated in controlled conditions.

http://www.physorg.com/news175092009.html

Even some limited macro evolutionary processes have been demonstrated by tinkering around with the HOX gene.

http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=36

That particular argument is false for two reasons. As Dunstan noted, young Earth creationism is not rejected because the theory lacks a falsification mechanism, it is rejected because it has already been successfully falsified by empirical evidence. The statement that evolutionary theory cannot be tested is also false. In essence both claims in the statement are false.

 

[ddt]

I think Dunstan nailed the basic deception in the argument on the head. I would also add that the second very glaring flaw in the argument is that evolutionary theory *is* in fact testable at the micro evolutionary level in the standard empirical manner. In fact it has already been demonstrated in controlled conditions.

http://www.physorg.com/news175092009.html

Yep, Lenski's E. coli experiment was my first reaction to the OP too. The most dramatic change observed was that some populations had evolved to live off citrate.

Even some limited macro evolutionary processes have been demonstrated by tinkering around with the HOX gene.

Why the distinction between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"? AFAIK, that's just a ploy by creationists to explain variation within a species and at the same time deny that evolution can bring about new species.

 

[PixyMisa]

The presence of Tiktaalik and the absense of Anomalobunnis Antecambriensis.

 

[arthwollipot]

Today I was at the library shelving books. As I was shelving one of them, I stopped for a moment as I realized I had a creationist book in my hand. I opened and started reading.

Long story short, as they're making their introduction, they present the following argument: If science is going to reject creation because there is no experiment that can test this, then it should as well reject evolution since there is no test that can be done to confirm this neither.

The only thing I had on the top of my mind is that I've heard of certain experiments that are like miniature versions of the large scale result of evolution. But other than that, I couldn't come up with an immediate answer.

How exactly would you refute this argument yourself?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

 

[TheDaver]

My favorite response to "gaps in the fossil record":

Please show me fossils of every single ancestor between you and Adam. Otherwise I'll have to assume that aliens brought you here last Thursday.

Unfortunately, creationists tend to be gibbering idiots and gibbering idiots tend not to recognize facetiousness.