Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus

by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current

• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  

  I'm not sure where you get the idea that just because knowledge of a fact predates the formation of the theory explaining said fact that the theory could not be falsified if the facts happened to be different.

  Is Relativity not falsifiable because the planetary motions it predicted had already been observed? For example:

  For years scientists struggled to explain the strange orbit of Mercury using Classical Newtonian calculations, but they never worked out right. Enter Relativity - the calculations were done using Einstien's method and the new theory matched the observation perfectly. If effect, Relativity had 'predicted' the orbit of Mercury would be different than Newtonian calculations indicated, though this fact had already been known for years.

  If the Relativistic calculations did not match the already observed irregularities of Mercury's orbit then it would have been falsified as a more accurate model than Classical physics.

  Likewise, if there were no recorded changes of life in the fossil record, Evolution would be immediately falsified. Creation would not. There is no falsification for creation theory.

  Edited to add:

  I'm having trouble figuring out the practical difference in these two statements:

  I never wished to imply "that because certain higher level theories have had to have been modified that the general theory is not falsifiable"

  My point is that the general theory of evolution is not falsifiable because no matter what happens to higher lever theories, the general theory will survive.

  Falsification of the theory depends of lower level facts that support the theory, not higher level theories built on top of it.

  Edited yet again to add:

  When we talk about the 'general theory of Evolution' what we are really talking about is the theory of Common Decent. The Nested Heirarchy of organism relatedness observed in nature is critical to Common Decent. The fact that new species we find and classify even to this day fit this pattern reinforces the predictive power of this theory. Instead of the theory of Common Decent being destroyed by newly discovered DNA evidence at the time, it was confirmed. This prediction is amazing considering the countless other possible ways things could have turned out to be. This, by the way, was confirmed many years after Darwin had already died.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  I'm not sure where you get the idea that just because knowledge of a fact predates the formation of the theory explaining said fact that the theory could not be falsified if the facts happened to be different.

  Then creation by typology (which is used by Linnaeus to explain the heirarchy) is just as falsifiable (by the hierarchy test) as evolution by decent (which is used to explain the heirarchy).
  

  Falsification of the theory depends of lower level facts that support the theory, not higher level theories built on top of it.

  Are these some of the lower facts that support the general theory?
  

  • change observed in the fossil record.
  • change in the fossil record in order.
  • organisms fit into a nested heirarchy.

  If so, lets look at each of these:

  The first one is "change observed in the fossil record" earlier you said: "Likewise, if there were no recorded changes of life in the fossil record, Evolution would be immediately falsified." If the fossil record was in the future found to consisted of virtually no fossils followed by invertebrate fossils, followed by fish fossils, followed by amphibian fossils, etc. with no apparent transitional fossils in between these major groups the general theory of evolution would still survive. Appeals could be made to incompete fossil record, inability to fossilize, rapid evolution, large amounts of dormant pre-existing genes being switched on at once, etc.

  If Evolution could survive even if there were no record of change between the major groups, a lack of change within these groups (such as no change between the early fish and the later fish) would by comparsion be a relatively minor problem. I know that evolutionists believe that there is fossil evidence for changes between these major groups as well as within them, however if these fossils were shown for some reason not to be transitional, evolution would still survive. For exmple if all the proposed candidates for transitonal forms between fish and amphibians were shown somehow not to be transitional, most evolutionists would still believe that amphibians evolved from fish.

  So if no change were found in the fossil record (both between major groups and within major groups)evolution would still survive.
• 

  rem

  hooberus,

  How would the general theory of special creation be falsified if Linaeus' theory were shown to be incorrect? If animals were found later that did not fit the nested heirarchy, then the creator theory would still be possible - but the creator would just be mysterious and not work by the rules that Linaeus laid out. Sure, Linaeus' more specific theory was falsifiable (and it was falsified), but that is a theory that was built on top of creation - not a foundation of it. Interestingly Linaeus believed in a sort of evolution later in his life, and his work was influential in formulating the ideas of Evolution including Common Decent.

  The nested heirarchy, on the other hand, is a foundation of Common Decent, which is what we mean when we say "Theory of Evolution". With no nested heirarchy, common decent through natural means is impossible (unless some other naturalistic explanation is found, which so far none has been). You see, an entirely different theory would have to be created to explain the facts if they were that way. The science of biology as we know it today would not exist.

  rem
• 

  Kaethra

  Abaddon - don't get enough time to read and respond to everything here very often but I just wanted to say...

  Cool! South of France would be fantastic, I'm sure. Sounds a bit like the trip my SO and I took to the Costa del Sol of Spain (sans the nudity, unfortunately...he's a bit of a prude :). Fabulous food, sun, wine....lots of lovely Brits there too...

  mmmmmm...."cheap" wine....we drank Campo Viejo Gran Reserva there every day...less than $6 Canadian per bottle. Here it costs around $40 a bottle. I want to go back to Spain!! Travel bug is scratching hard!

  And now, back to your regularly scheduled Creation Vs. Evolution debate....
• 

  hooberus

  rem, I think that if organisms were not able to be classified into nested hierarchies that evolution (decent with modification) could still have been be proposed. If new animals are discovered that are not able to be classified into nested heirarchies, evolution can still be proposed.
• 

  rem

  hooberus,

  Decent with modification is an observed fact - not a theory. Common Decent is a theory and relies on the fact of observed nested heirarchies - and decent with modification as well.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  rem, I still think that if organisms were not able to be classified into nested hierarchies that the general theory of evolution could still have been be proposed.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  I think we have to agree to disagree on this point. I think we've both made our points as clear as possible on this topic.

  One thing that I find odd is the amount of energy expended on trying show that Evolution is not falsifiable. It sounds like the strategy is to claim that any theory of origins (of phyla and even life) are not falsifiable. I find this position absurd. In that case, there could be no worthwhile scientific study of life as we know it. The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is that any theory of origins does not belong in a science class. It should just be labeled a mystery of god and there is nothing we can learn about it.

  Obviously this is not true. Many advances we have made in scientific knowledge about biology/DNA and medicical advances have their direct roots in Evolutionary theory. There is not one scientific or medical advance that any Creation theory has ever provided. This fact alone shows that Creationism as a theory is worthless.

  Worthless theories don't belong in science classes. I don't know how much more clear this can be.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  One thing that I find odd is the amount of energy expended on trying show that Evolution is not falsifiable. It sounds like the strategy is to claim that any theory of origins (of phyla and even life) are not falsifiable. I find this position absurd. In that case, there could be no worthwhile scientific study of life as we know it. The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is that any theory of origins does not belong in a science class. It should just be labeled a mystery of god and there is nothing we can learn about it.

  There are only three basic options for the world of biological life we see today. Evolutionists exclude two of these options a priori from discussion in classrooms. This is supposedly because these options are said not to be falsifiable. It is evolutionists who are using the falsifiablity argument to attempt to exclude theories of origins from being taught in science classes. My point with the falsifiabilty issue is to show that the general theory of evolution is itself virtually unfalsifiable. Hense, evolutionists should not exclude the other two options from science classrooms based on falsifiabilty when their own theory is itself virtually unfalsifiable.
• 

  AlanF

  Hooberus, you're mixing up principle with practice. All theories of creation are in principle not falsifiable; thus they are not part of proper science. They might be true, but science deals only with falsifiable theories. You're arguing that all theories of evolution are in practice not falsifiable because scientists will always come up with some variation of "evolution" in order to maintain a "belief" in some form of "evolution". Everything you've said to Rem is aligned with your claim about practice; you've said nothing about principle. Thus your arguments don't accomplish what you think they do.

  It seems that you, like so many young-earth creationists, fully realize that your beliefs are religion not science, and you hate it that evolution is real science. So you try to bring science down to the level of religion. Well, my friend, that may work with people in YEC circles, but not with anyone with respect for real science.

  AlanF