A Leauki's Writings
About the world and G-d and other creations
Published on May 14, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

(I made this into a blog entry since I got positive feedback immediately when I posted it in the forums.)

As was mentioned many times before, the evolution of one species into two can be observed in the lab. I believe they usually use fruitflies.

The theory of evolution says that what works in the lab explains what happened in the real world as well. There is no reason to assume that fruitflies (or any animal) stop reproducing just before two populations stop being compatible enough to interbreed (definition of species).

There can never be "proof" for a theory because that's not how the real world works. Empirically, every single change we observe could be explained by evolution, but perhaps there was one event where a new species was created in a different way. We cannot disprove that. And doing so is not what science is about.

Now, Creationism and ID claim that some creator created all the species. That claim may or may not be as valid as the claim of evolution.

But there is no evidence for a creator in the real world and there have been no lab experiments that demonstrate how "creation" or "intelligent design" work.

So until ID proponents can create two different species in a lab, it's not a scientific theory to state that ID explains how it happened in the real world.


Let's use a different example, with a real world and a lab. We are trying to find an explanation (a "theory", if you will) for the facts we observe.

Our fact: In our real world in this thought experiment we observe that the smurfs are born in the basement of the house (there is only this one house in our thought experiment real world) but that some of them live in the first and second floors of the building.

Two explanations for how they get from the basement to floors 1 and 2 come to mind:

1. They use the stairs.

2. They are moved from the basement to the first and second floors by a creator or some such person.


Our lab: We have a much smaller building with mini-smurfs (mini-smurfs are very very small smurfs) that we observe. It has a basement and an upper floor and stairs.

What we observe in the lab: Mini-smurfs use the stairs to get from the basement to the first floor without our doing.

What we don't observe: A creator takes mini-smurfs and moves them around without our doing.

Our theory: In the real world smurfs ALSO use the stairs to get from the basement to other floors.

We cannot prove it. Perhaps they do. It seems likely that they do. Perhaps they use the stairs so rarely that we cannot observe it in our short lifetimes.

The point is that the _theory_ explains HOW it might work and we have evidence (the stairs) and can demonstrate in the lab that the method DOES work.


That's the difference between a scientific theory and a fairy tale.

Plus we don't have to have an explanation for why the creator exists or moves smurfs around.


There is NO evidence at all that G-d is running around the world stopping fruitflies from reproducing just before two fruitfly populations become two species of fruitflies.


on May 14, 2008

Great minds think alike (and so do ours )  I just wrote a blog on what the scientific method is exactly so as to help people delineate between science and philosophy.  For some reason, it seems hard to get the emotion out of the issue.  The Scientific Method serves to do EXACTLY that.

on May 14, 2008
Yepp, saw that. Good article!

But I am not really the science type and hence cannot write a good criticism of your description of the scientific method.

Smurfs will do it for me.

I have always liked Peyo's comic books:

(Hated the American Smurfs cartoon show. Always liked Peyo's comic books.)

on May 14, 2008

Can you translate that for (us/me?)

on May 14, 2008

"chocolates and crackers"

It has nothing to do with science or religion. It just happened to be the nearest Peyo comic I could find from my desk.


on May 14, 2008

The area around my desk is not very organised:

on May 29, 2008
Very thought provoking.