Well. Let us say I do not have any scientifically tenable evidence. The basis of evolution that has not been evidenced for is what we religious people normally refer to as creator. You can call it a mere hypothesis but that is what I am holding on to until proven otherwise. I hope I have honestly addressed your question
RE: Evolution vs Creation: The dilemma of religious scientists
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Evolution vs Creation: The dilemma of religious scientists
Yes, thank you for your honest answer.
What I honestly don't understand is why would anybody, especially a scientist, willfully hold a position that they understand is not supported by any evidence.
As far as science goes, that's objectively the wrong approach, don't you think? Aren't we supposed to withhold belief until the hypothesis becomes supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence and reliability?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
apologies for the late reply. Hypothesis can be tested to be correct or otherwise. That is why it is call hypothesis. If I hold on to the hypothesis that there is a creator, it remains an hypothesis until proven otherwise
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Even bigger apologies for the much slower reply! ;)
If something is obviously a hypothesis then, why would one assert it's true? That's the part I see as unreasonable. I'm not sure I understand what "hold a hypothesis" is supposed to mean exactly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Holding on to an hypothesis does not mean it is true. It is like holding on to a relationship until a better person comes around because you just don't want to be single
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I see. I wouldn't say it's a very good policy neither regarding the search for what's truth, nor regarding relationships actually ;)
When talking about unproven hypothesis, the question is why would you regard holding an unproven and largely unsubstantiated hypothesis as if it were true and as a truly defining feature of yourself and why would you try to put it on par with something that is clearly proven like the process of evolution? Their substantiation and the evidence supporting them are on vastly different levels.
Additionally, do you hold any of the alternate hypothesis to this one along side this one and if not, do you have any reason to differentiate them besides indoctrination? Is this a good reason?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dave, evidences supporting evolution are overwhelming, agreed. But these evidences prove nothing as far as creation is concerned. Like I said, I have a null hypothesis of an existence of a creator does not necessarily means it will hold true. It is just a null hypothesis that will be rejected as long as there are significant evidences disproving it. For now, I do not believe evolution and creation to be mutually exclusive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is not how the null hypothesis works. The null hypothesis is used to not accept unvalidated hypotheses as true, not to pick something at random and to stick with it until proven otherwise.
What does mutual exclusivity have to do with this? There are whole host of alternative hypotheses with zero evidence going for them that can be inserted in everything that you are saying in place of creationism. Believing any of them is unreasonable until you have evidence to support them. Not every wacky hypothesis out there can be immediately disproved, but this doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it. Can you disprove that the forces we are seeing are not the result of tiny green unicorns living inside elementary particles and their farts? If you can't disprove it, it doesn't mean it's true or that it is reasonable to believe it and the null hypothesis means that you should not believe it until it is proven, not the opposite. Your creationism at this stage is just as scientific as the farting unicorns.
You might want to brush up on the scientific method and the null hypothesis as some of your concepts about both are clearly shaky even from the perspective of a layman as myself. As a scientists, I think you should demand more from your own reasoning.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The concept of null and alternate hypothesis do not arise until hypotheses are to be tested. Just trying to emphasize that what I hold on to is to be tested and found wanting, it can easily be rejected. You can as well tell those that are still holding own to the theory of flat earth to demand more from their reasoning. Reasoning can be subjective without evidence and the only way to prove it is to provide evidences against such reasoning. I do not believe there is a right or wrong opinion to this issue unless we want to continue in endless argument which could lead to bandying of insults. I totally respect your view
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit