Testing Evolution vs. Direct Creation

YouTube Preview Image

An interesting video, worth sharing with those who claim that evolution is untestable and that the differences between mainstream biology and young-earth creationism are merely due to the same evidence being viewed through different lenses of presuppositions.

  • David_Evans

    Not bad for an 8-minute video. I thought the early parts were the best. I was expecting the “creation predicts gaps” slide to be followed by a more convincing account of discoveries that fill apparent gaps – Tiktaalik, perhaps, or the various “walking whales”. The latter would be particularly good because creationists used to laugh at the very idea of an intermediate between land animals and whales. The “T. rex is a big chicken” section was too rushed to convince.

  • TomS

    My own taste is, I don’t particularly care for this approach. It gives the impression that creationists actually have something definite to say; moreover it is very easy for creationists to respond, for any of those features of the world of life, that creationism accounts for them: “God can do that.” Or, as they have often told us, about living things sharing features in common, “That only shows that they have the same Creator.”

  • cameronhorsburgh

    It seems to me that the only science Creationism approximates is psychology.

    ‘Evolutionists’ spend their time developing new tools and calibrating them. For example, geologists and palaeontologists figured out the relationship between geological strata and the fossil record. Physics provided tools for dating those fossils and strata absolutely. Biologists were eventually able to add another layer of nuance (and fill in a lot of gaps) when they figured out how to rewind the genetic clock and match it to what the fossils were telling us.

    Most of the ‘hard’ sciences have something to add to our understanding of the story of life, and anomalies are welcomed as they provide a means to sharpen the tools at science’s disposal.

    Creationism responds to inconsistency in data by either impugning the character of people who point out anomalies in its position, or by attributing the problem to God. Either way, the question becomes one of motive, which is the domain of psychology.

    I’m sure a working knowledge of psychology is also useful in the art of huckstering, but I’m in a charitable mood today…