There's nothing in EGreg's comments to indicate that. I don't think accusing people of being creationists when they say something mildly critical of some branch of evolutionary biology is conducive to a good discussion.
He means it in a sense of turning it into a new creation story that is above reproach instead of treating it as a working theory that needs to be continually investigated and refined.
Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design. But neither of us know that, so that's why I asked.
Where on earth did you get that? And you are clearly incorrect as he/she hasn't answered my question. Therefore I cannot be "smearing" him for a response he hasn't given.
What ridiculous ad hominem.
I asked a genuine question that hasn't been answered and you inferred far more from it than there really was.
I was paralleling your own baseless speculation about someone’s motives: “Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design.”
Fair enough, but had he answered, "no", to, "do you think creationism is a valid theory" I would have been happy to accept his premise that he was only interested in scientific discovery. That's why I asked that specific question. To clarify my possibly incorrect assumption that he believes in creationism and is only saying what he is to further that agenda.
That's why I asked. I could well be wrong about that. But he hasn't answered.
When I mentioned the creationism, I mentioned it in the way foldr understood.
But listen: I meant exactly what I said and that should be enough. I don’t have to be a communist to point out failures of markets. A person who believes the invisible hand always knows best should defend their position with logic instead of counterattacking others with adhominems.
And that is actually a weaker example. I don’t have to even have a competing theory to point out that unfalsifiable theories abound in the area of evolution.
I already said to you the common descent theory has AMPLE evidence. From genetic evidence, geology, fossil record, radiometric dating and so on. So clearly I have give you a standard that leaves the other evolutionary theories in the dust. Just because they can all be lumped under the umbrella term “evolution” doesn’t mean they are all one, proven theory!!
Consider the multiverse theory. Is that falsifiable? Is it science?
My point is that no thise things are not actually science. They are simply a preference to claim every result we observe was brought about by processes we already understand. The word “science” is just attached to it because it gives it a nice halo effect.
Neither multiverse theories nor these theories are actually falsifiable in any practical way.
The goal of promoting these theories is actually to have a legitimate-sounding (on the surface) way avoid admitting there may be supernatural causes involving phenomena that we don’t understand and may never understand.
In quantum mechanics, fine tuning of constants, and many other areas, we have possibly reached a limit of what we can actually test or explain using classical reasoning. And we have begun to accept that maybe properly done science has limits.
Beyond this lies faith, of many sorts. Religious faith, or faith in the principle that there are no skyhooks or that everything is made up of stuff we more of less already understand.
You can say that makes me a creationist because once I say we don’t know HOW X CAME ABOUT there is no difference in explanations.
But that’s not true. You can rule out explanations by falsification! For example you can rule out most Greek myths, because they involve falsifiable elements that have been shown to be false (eg apollo with the sun in a chariot going across the sky, or mount olympus being home to zeus). Most religions make falsifiable claims, and that’s how we can actually disprove them. But to the extent a natural theory consistts of UNFALSIFIBLE claims, we have to be honest about them being unfalsifiable, even if the only alternative is a supernatural explanation.
The supernatural is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist, in the same way you cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun.
On the one hand you demand pure scientific evidence for evolution to explain EVERYTHING, but on the other you say that the supernatural has been ignored, without giving any scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up.
I apologise for calling you a "creationist", as it seems you took that as a pejorative term.
It seems to me you're suggesting that there is some combination of evolution and the supernatural that can be a perfect model for explaining the world, but you're going to have to give some falsifiable theories on the supernatural for that.
If existing theories are not enough to explain how macroevolution took place, then we know there is a gap. If we don't know how the constants of the universe are fine-tuned, you have a gap. A gap in explanation.
Now you can just fill that gap with a multiverse theory and anthropic principle. You can make up stories all day long about how things could have happened with mere mutation and natural selection. But that's not scientific. All you're doing is doubling down on the idea that the only processes that we need to care about are like the things we've already discovered. Easily explainable, simple things. It's a preference for those kinds of things to fill in the explanatory gap. But either way, you have no good way to test your theories at the moment. You may have faith that ONE DAY these theories or some other natural theory will be proven. But that's not much different than a religious faith. Religious people prefer to believe that such complexity was not brought about by mere "chance" operation of the universe, but was planned. They prefer to see an uncaused, omniscient mind. You prefer to see simpler explanations. Dawkins admits it in his book.
If you want falsifiable theories with predictions, that involve the supernatural, read Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance", which I referenced above.
If you can show falsifiable theories of HOW macroevolution occurred, say the evolution of flight, make predictions, and do experiments than prove them, then by all means I will accept the conclusions. For example: allopatric speciation can explain various ring species which we can actually see today. But most speciation did not seem to follow any sort of physical barriers to restrict gene flow between interfertile populations. So to say wings simply evolved because (insert just-so-story here) is not going to do it for a rigorously scientifically minded person. That's the point. And that point is regardless of what the alternative theories say.
