Remster,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remster  Do you agree that the the creationist theory can be amended to fit any evidence that an evolutionist might come up with? (I'm led to believe that this is what actually happens. Note that being amended to fit any evidence isn't quite the same as already fitting any evidence, which is what would make the theory 'metaphysical'.) |
As a metaphysical explanation, yes I agree they can fit any observations about evolution to creationism.
Quote:
|
If so, do you hold the view that the simpler evolutionist theory is more likely to be true than the more complex creationist theory?
|
Being a metaphysical argument there is often a lot of semantics involved, but not to over think things - yes, evolution is more likely to be true than creationism.
Quote:
|
If so, what evidence have you to support this view?
|
Simply put, evolution is a descriptive explanation. Creationism (as we are using it here) is a metaphysical explanation for this descriptive explanation. Hence, if the descriptive explanation is wrong than so is the metaphysical explanation is wrong.
Using your example, evolution says the fossil record will show simpler organisms existing before more complex organisms. Creationism also makes the same claim but states that a metaphysical entity is responsible for this. So, if we were to find any evidence to disprove evolution then this theory of creationism would also be disproved. There then is no way for this creationist theory to be true while evolution is false. Add to this that it is possible this metaphysical entity does not exist while the fossil record fits the evolution description and we can say that the metaphysical explanation is less likely to be true.
What I am saying here is this,
That the fossil record fits the description of evolution may be true of false.
That a metaphysical entity caused this may be true or false.
Both of these statements can simultaneously be true.
Both of these statements can simultaneously be false.
Evolution can be true and the metaphysical entity can be false.
But the metaphysical entity can't be true while evolution is false.
This is because evolution is a description and the proposed metaphysical entity is supposed to cover that description.
Of course, I'm not sure I would call this an actual metaphysical entity or metaphysical theory since it does effect the appearance of the world. But again, I was just trying to avoid semantics and answer your question in the most straight forward way I could.