by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think that for all practical purposes the general concepts of Evolution and Creation are difficult to falsify. However each concept can make sub-hypothesis that are much easier to falsify.
There are sub-hypothesis within the Evolutionary model that have been falsified, just as there have been sub-hypothesis within the Creation model that have also been falsified.
Relativity predicted an observation that predated it: The orbit of Mercury was known before Einstein... the problem was that Newtonian physics did not accurately calculate it. Einstein's theory was able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury which was already observed, providing an immediate way of falsifying his theory. Thus, in the scientific sense, predictions do not necessarily have to predate the observations they are 'predicting'.
If predictions do not necessarily have to predate the observartions they are predicting and thus the heirarchial structure could be used as evidence for evolution, then likewise the heirarchial structure could also be used as evidence for creation.
As a side note: Denton in his first book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) gives some information which indicates that the heirarchial structure is actually not as compatible with evolution as is thought.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH, Hooberus I just responded with a great explanation and I lost it to a damn server error!!! Seriously, it was probably one of my most eloquent posts ever.... when will I ever learn to edit offline!!! Geez.
It's always the best ones that get nailed. Simon has an artificial intelligence program which automatically selects the best posts ever from each of us and destroys them. Its called "Simons Passive Agressive Proximity Detection and Elimination Counter Thread Acquisition System" (people have disappeared here for even mentioning it.)
Earlier I had listed three basic options for origins such as:
1. Evolution
2. Creation
3. Others
Various sub-hypothesis can be fit under each one, but the general concepts seem to be the same.
After thinking about it, it seems to me that most of the things that I can think of as being under the "Others" category are actually Evolution/Creation hybrids, such as rems earlier point about humans and chimpanzees:
I would add another possibility: Humans and Chimpanzees share a common creator AND a common ancestor, though that would still not be falsifiable. Actually there are many more that I can think of, including multiple creators.
Also the comment by Francois is a hybrid model:
Hooberus, it takes quiet a bit of hubris to adopt your position; that is you flatly state what god did and did not do. You have no idea what he did and did not do. You have opinions, just like the rest of us. And mine is that God did indeed create everything, likely from one smart molecule, and that evolution was his technique. And that's my opinion. And I won't yield my opinion to someone who is so cock-sure as to say "God did it this way," mainly because you don't, can't, know.
So maybe my options should be:
1. Evolution
2. Creation
3. Evolution/Creation Hybrids
Right now I can't think of anything that could be listed outside of these, though there may be some. The options always seem to come back to either some form or combination of Evolution or Creation.
Well I know I may be opening a can of worms here....
Hell u sure did Dottie!
Ok i didn't have time to read the SEVEN pages of this thread but just wanted to say that i believe in both at the same time. I do believe in Evolution but only like the evolution from a cellular organism to the human being, not from nothing to this cellular organism. I mean why didn't God just started with one single cell, he must be bored after all that time, just to see what would happen. No harm to combine these two theories.....evolution but of Gods creation
Hooberus,
How would one falsify the entire concept of evolution?
Evolution is decent with modification. If you could show that there is no evidence of this in the fossil and DNA evidence, then you have falsified evolution.
On an earlier post you stated that if the earth were proven young, then this would falsify evolution.
Sometimes I speak in shorthand. I meant that the current theory of evolution would be falsified.
Also if it is said that if the Earth were somehow to be "proven" as being young would falsify evolution, then likewise the Earth somehow being "proven" old could be said to falsify strict Biblical creation, thus making it a falsible theory!
Exactly. There are certain creation theories that are falsifiable. A strict literal interpretation of the biblical creation account is most certainly falsifiable. This does not, however, falsify the concept of god. The problem is that creationists change the biblical account or interpret it in such a fashion that it is no longer falsifiable. They must do this because the creation account as stated in the bible has been falsified by modern data. Theories that cannot be falsified (and these go beyond a literal interpretation of the bible) are theories in which god actually created a young earth, but made it look like it is old. There are many such creation theories out there.
Also if fossil evidence could be said to be a falsification test for evolution, then likewise it could also be said to be just as much a falsification test for creation.
Yes. Fossil evidence has falsified some specific creation theories, including a strict literal interpretation of the creation account in the bible. Most creation theories that are argued, however, are not falsifiable.
While creationists use the evidence for "no transitional fossils being found" to attempt to falsify evolution, Evolutionists use evidence "for transitional fossils being found" as an attempt to falsify creation !
There's no getting around the fact that transitional fossils have been found. The existence of transitional fossils do not falsify Creation, though. They only provide evidence for evolution.
Falsify "the entire concept of god" (a proposed mechanism in the creation concept) is not the issue. The issue is the falsibility of the concepts of evolution and creation.
Both concepts of evolution and creation have falsifiable and non falsifiable theories. The issue is that no one seems to seriously support any falsifiable theories of creation.
If predictions do not necessarily have to predate the observartions they are predicting and thus the heirarchial structure could be used as evidence for evolution, then likewise the heirarchial structure could also be used as evidence for creation.
Sure, the heirarchical structure of life could be used to strengthen certain theories of creation, but you'd have to explain how and why a non-heirarchical structure would falsify or at least weaken the theory.
After thinking about it, it seems to me that most of the things that I can think of as being under the "Others" category are actually Evolution/Creation hybrids, such as rems earlier point about humans and chimpanzees:
You are probably right. Maybe one option is that everything is uncaused - such as Last Tuesdayism... though this is yet another non-falsifiable theory.
I'm off to the Irish pubs! Take care.
rem
rem said: Evolution is decent with modification. If you could show that there is no evidence of this in the fossil and DNA evidence, then you have falsified evolution.
While specific theories of evolution may be fairly falsible by the fossil record. The concept of Evolution itself may not be very falsible by the fossil record. Even if it were proven that there are no transitional fossils between the major groups such as Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals, the concept of Evolution could still survive. It would be said that Amphibians are transitional between, Fish and Reptiles, and that Reptilies are transitional between Amphibians and Mammals. The lack of transitional fossils between Fish and Amphibians could be explained away based on either poverty of the fossil record or some sort of rapid evolutionary process.
rem said: Yes. Fossil evidence has falsified some specific creation theories, including a strict literal interpretation of the creation account in the bible. Most creation theories that are argued, however, are not falsifiable.
The same can be said for creation in that specific theories of creation may be fairly falsible by the fossil record, but the concept of Creation itself may not be very falsible by the fossil record.
rem said: There's no getting around the fact that transitional fossils have been found.
The fact of transitional fossils is of course subject to interpretation and debate.
rem said: The existence of transitional fossils do not falsify Creation, though. They only provide evidence for evolution.
Based on another interpretation of evidence one could just as easily say: "There's no getting around the fact that transitional fossils have not been found. The lack of transitional fossils do not falsify Evolution, though. It only provide evidence for creation."
However it might be better to combine both views and say: "The possible existance of transitional fossils falsifies creation to the same extent that the possible lack of transitional fossils falsifies evolution."
rem said:Yes. Fossil evidence has falsified some specific creation theories, including a strict literal interpretation of the creation account in the bible. Most creation theories that are argued, however, are not falsifiable.
Actually rem, I don't think that this is true. Many people compare the relative order of creation events in the Bible, with the standard published relative order of the fossils and conclude that since they are different that the Biblical account has been falsified.
However most major creationist organizations do not believe that the fossils were laid down during the creation period, but that the fossils were laid down during the later flood. Thus there is no requirement that the two match in relative order. The requirement then becomes for the fossils to match with the flood stages. (I know that you don't believe in the flood, but please try to understand my point here.)
rem said: Both concepts of evolution and creation have falsifiable and non falsifiable theories. The issue is that no one seems to seriously support any falsifiable theories of creation.
The modern theory of creation is seriously supported by thousands of scientists (the Creation Resarch Society alone has over 1,000 members all with advanced degrees in science). It is also practically just as falsible as the modern theory of evolution. In fact evolutionists are constantly trying to falsify componets of it just as much as creationists are constantly trying to falsify componets of the modern theory of evolution.
