In our last class we discussed a bit about proofs and the idea that a non-proof isn't the same as a disproof. Disproofs can be very difficult, because you have to show something will never happen under any conditions. A non-proof is just shows that it doesn't work/happen under the conditions you tested. It does not mean it never happens. It could just mean you failed at experimenting. Unfortunately a lot of science can be lost like this.
Once I thought about it a bit though, in relation to the evo-ID debate, I realised this same sort of idea can be applied. If there is proof a creator of some kind exists, then that still doesn't rule out evolution. As stated back in the first post, s/he may have created life, and then decided to let it evolve on it's own. Unless of course we can talk to it and are scolded for considering evolution...
The reverse also applies. If every piece of evidence for evolution ever needed was found (fully complete fossil record, every genome in existence sequenced and compared, etc.), it still would not disprove a creator. That would need proof of the origins of life, because evolution is only the mechanism for change and speciation.
No comments:
Post a Comment