NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's talk big issues about these two opposing thoughts, which makes them so incompatible. It's not the existence of a god or not, but it's the direction of thinking.

Basically, Evolution and the Big Bang theory, dissimilar but coexistent, observes natural phenomena and works backwards to form the theory, called inductive logic.

On the other hand, Creationism starts off with a premise and works to fit the natural phenomena to that premise, called deductive logic.

In both cases, there are anamolies that have yet to be explained by either theory.

What do you think?

This thread, for the first few pages anyway, should focus on the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the theories, not the general "rabble", please. Thank you. :D

I think you need to re-take your logic course. You'd fail the one I took.

well I think its erroneous to say they are opposing views as they dont' actually deal with the same topic. Creationism primarily encompasses the origin of the universe and life. Evolution doesn't. Creationism might or might not involve evolution.

Intelligent design isnt science. It's impossible to either falsify or conclusively prove that it is correct. It may well be "true" (I personally somewhat doubt that) but it isnt "science" and people should stop pretending that it is. It's dogma dressed up as science and given a different name to dupe people and it's no more scientific than astrology or tarrot reading - of course, the predictions may tie in with reality in some cases, but it's impossible to conclusively prove or disprove.

Creationism on the other hand isnt science at all and as far as we can tell, it's just plain wrong as described in the bible.

On the other hand, Creationism starts off with a premise and works to fit the natural phenomena to that premise, called deductive logic.

No, it's called the "protecting the hypothesis" fallacy. This is where you fit observations to a pre-concieved hypothesis, rather than making and then revising a hypothesis from the synthesis of observations, extrapolations, and prior knowledge.

Deductive logic is determining the cause to a known effect, or determining the general from a known specific.

No, it's called the "protecting the hypothesis" fallacy. This is where you fit observations to a pre-concieved hypothesis, rather than making and then revising a hypothesis from the synthesis of observations, extrapolations, and prior knowledge.

Deductive logic is determining the cause to a known effect, or determining the general from a known specific.
Fence-sitter though I may be in Creationism/Evolution debates (I was encouraged to learn about both from my priest, as we were taught very little of it in school), I have to agree with Feil on this one. Creationism does (or once did, rather) have a good basis to it, but the fact that every Christian from here to the fifth century has tried to skew the basic ideology into fitting around the whole world.....that's just wrong.