The Theory Of Creation

[gluadys]

Why should truth be falsified?

Of course, it would not be falsified. But to test out whether it is the truth, it should be capable of being falsified. If it is not, we have no way of telling whether it is true or not.

 

[Hammster]

If the Scientific Method was around a thousand years ago, the idea of Creation may have been called a Scientific Theory. The main reason it is does not carry said appellation at present is because, due to its interpretive nature, it cannot be falsified (e.g. when evidence came about that the Earth was in fact much much older than originally thought, OEC was spawned).

With scientific theories today, one of two things can occur. Evidence can either falsify a theory by contradicting a prediction made thereby, or evidence can verify a theory by fulfilling another prediction. Since Creationism cannot be falsified, in order to talk about the Theory of Creation (although falsification is actually a criterion for a Scientific Theory we will ignore that for now for the sake of this discussion), we must focus on the predictions it may make.

Now the competing theory, the Theory of Evolution, among countless other things has predicted the nested hierarchy of life, common genomes (as in the strikingly similar code comprising human beings and chimps), and vesitigial structures (although these are, in scientific method jargon, technically postdictions, we will also ignore that for now). If you are telling me that you want Creation to be held to the same standard as Evolution (e.g. taught in schools), what predictions has Creation made that have been verified by evidence?

I am not sure why I even wandered into this, because no matter what anyone says, you will just find something to disagree with. You are not really looking for an answer, you just want to try to advance your belief. This is intellectual dishonesty. It would be better if you had just asked why should we teach the 'myth' of creation along side the 'truth' of evolution, based on your guidelines.

However, I do want to point something out about your assumption that humans and chimps have a common ancestor because of "the strikingly similar code comprising human beings and chimps". This I will do on my refrigerator. Now, you may be asking how I can do this on my refrigerator. Well, it isn't exactly my refrigerator, but it is strikingly similar. What I am typing on has metal and plastic parts. Wires running through it. A screen. Temperatures that are outside of room temperature. Both plug in and both can still be used for a short time after unplugging. Oh, and both have hinges. So, since they are so similar, they both must have a common ancestor and one was derived from the other.

Let's try to be honest and not so "AH HA!!! I have them now". We could come up with reason after reason why Creation/Intelligent Design should be taught, but then you would just come up with some reason why it shouldn't be taught. I contend that they should both be taught and let students make the decision on which has the most evidence that matches reality. This way, it would be teaching instead of indoctrinating.

 

[Kyrisch]

Recall that I did not ask for refutation of evolution. There is enough of that here, which is precisely why I asked for predictions made by any theory of Creation.

Please stay on-topic.

We could come up with reason after reason why Creation/Intelligent Design should be taught...

Humour me. Are these reasons in the form of testable predictions, I do hope?

 

[Hammster]

I guess you miss the point. All you want is a sliver of what you would call proof so that you can try to disprove it. You really are looking for an honest answer, you are looking for an argument.

If testable predictions are your only evidence of proof, then I really feel sorry for you.

 

[artybloke]

If testable predictions are your only evidence of proof, then I really feel sorry for you.

Testable predictions are absolutely essential to any scientific hypothesis. Without testable predictions, there is no such thing as "scientific creationism."

 

[Mallon]

However, I do want to point something out about your assumption that humans and chimps have a common ancestor because of "the strikingly similar code comprising human beings and chimps". This I will do on my refrigerator. Now, you may be asking how I can do this on my refrigerator. Well, it isn't exactly my refrigerator, but it is strikingly similar. What I am typing on has metal and plastic parts. Wires running through it. A screen. Temperatures that are outside of room temperature. Both plug in and both can still be used for a short time after unplugging. Oh, and both have hinges. So, since they are so similar, they both must have a common ancestor and one was derived from the other.

Your analogy is false because machines are not imperfect replicators. Chimps and humans are, and they have fossil and genetic records that indepedently support the theory of their common ancestry.

I contend that they should both be taught and let students make the decision on which has the most evidence that matches reality. This way, it would be teaching instead of indoctrinating.

Why should we teach Intelligent Design when the movement's own founding fathers say that it is not ready to be taught in school yet? Here's what Philip Johnson recently had to say about ID:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

 

[sfs]

I guess you miss the point. All you want is a sliver of what you would call proof so that you can try to disprove it. You really are looking for an honest answer, you are looking for an argument.

I don't know about anyone else, but I want a valid reason for thinking that what you're talking about is true. You know, evidence of some kind.

If testable predictions are your only evidence of proof, then I really feel sorry for you.

How do you decide what's likely to be true?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, it would not be falsified. But to test out whether it is the truth, it should be capable of being falsified. If it is not, we have no way of telling whether it is true or not.

If anything can be falsified, then it is not a truth.
If so, what is the point of testing it? It would be wrong anyway.

 

[Kyrisch]

If anything can be falsified, then it is not a truth.
If so, what is the point of testing it? It would be wrong anyway.

You're misunderstanding. Anything that has been falsified (like Creation, through fossil record, the impossibility of earth before sun, the impossibility of plants before sun) cannot be true. However, something that cannot be falsified cannot be tested because the test would mean nothing, never being able to procure a negative result. There's a difference between falsifiability and actual falsification.

 

[gluadys]

If anything can be falsified, then it is not a truth.
If so, what is the point of testing it? It would be wrong anyway.

No. Lots of things are falsifiable, but still true.

It is not a question of whether something IS true or false, but of whether it can be tested for its truth value.

If you can think of a way to show something is false, you can set up a test. If it is not false, the test will show that. So then it is falsifiable (because you can test it) but true (because the test shows it is not false.)

The key is that you don't know for sure before you conduct the test.

So you do not know whether it is wrong until you try it.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, it would not be falsified. But to test out whether it is the truth, it should be capable of being falsified. If it is not, we have no way of telling whether it is true or not.

I am not sure if I am arguing against you or not, The following argument might be redundant.

You develop a program B to test if A is a truth.

And the program B itself is not completely right (falsifiable). So either it succeeded or failed, it is not good enough to test the validity of A, because the test program itself is not true.

So, you use another falsifiable program C for the test, the result would be the same. And program D, and program E, etc etc. All these falsifiable programs are not good enough to test the truth A, simply because all of them are falsifiable.

As of A, it is NOT falsifiable. So it is a truth.

 

[Kyrisch]

You're misunderstanding the definition of falsifiable. Falsifiability means "capability of being proven wrong". For instance, the statement "I weigh x pounds" is falsifiable because it CAN be proven wrong. However, if in an attempt to prove it wrong, it is observed that I do, in fact, weigh x pounds, then it is verified.

 

[gluadys]

I am not sure if I am arguing against you or not, The following argument might be redundant.

You develop a program B to test if A is a truth.

And the program B itself is not completely right (falsifiable).

No, what you are looking for is an observation B whose truth or falsity depends on the truth or falsity of A.

Your premise can be any one of these:

If A is true, B must be observed.

If A is true, B must not be observed.

If A is false, B must be observed.

If A is false, B must not be observed.

So you develop a program to determine whether or not B is observed. And depending on your premise you now know whether A is true or false.

Yes, the testing program itself may come under scrutiny. It may be alleged that it is not suitable for observing B, that it gives false positives or negatives.

So then, you either make corrections to the testing, or you test A in some other way e.g.
If A is true, observation C must be true, etc.

But the testing program per se does not decide the validity of A. It is the observation B (or C or D, etc.) which does that. If the testing program is faulty nothing is falsified because it is not capable of making the required observation, so no conclusion one way or another is possible with this test.

But the answer is not a new program to test the testing program, but a new or modified program which can reliably observe B. (or C or D, etc.)

As of A, it is NOT falsifiable. So it is a truth.

No,if something is not falsifiable, we have no way of knowing if it is true.
Only if it is actually falsified do we know that it is not true.

The reverse, however, is not the case.
Even if something is not falsified in one test, it may still not be true, for it could be falsified in a different test.

All we know if a test does not falsify A is that it is provisionally true.

 

[juvenissun]

No,if something is not falsifiable, we have no way of knowing if it is true.
Only if it is actually falsified do we know that it is not true.

And this is what I am arguing.

If creation is falsified, then it is not true. But people criticized that creation can not be falsified. Is it good or bad? People think it is bad. But I think it is good. Why do I wish it could be falsified? I WISH it would NEVER be falsified. So, when people said it could not be falsified, I am very happy because it says that creation IS true. What is wrong with it?

I think you like to see TE be falsified, don't you? If it were falsified, are you happy? If it could not be falsified, are you not happy?

I wish I can say something about science which can not be falsified. Why do I want to see my scientific theory be falsified?

 

[Kyrisch]

You are still not understanding . Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it IS or SHOULD BE falsified. Creation should be falsifiable because the status of it being both falsifiable but NOT falsified would be a testament to its truth. If something is not falsifiable, then the fact that it has never been falsified means nothing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Adding my 2 cents ...

Falsifiable: An attribute of an idea such that a test can be devised so that failure or success of the test can determine whether that idea is false.

 

[gluadys]

And this is what I am arguing.

If creation is falsified, then it is not true.

I think you are still not grasping the crucial difference between "falsifiable" and "falsified".

"Falsifiable" comes down to saying the idea can be tested. It may prove false, but it will not necessarily be proved false by the test.

"Falsified" means it has been tested and has been shown to be false.

"Not falsified" means it has been tested and has not been shown to be false. (It has not been shown to be true either, but it has not been shown to be false.)

"Not falsifiable" means it cannot even be tested.

I do not think the doctrine of creation has been falsified,nor do I think it is falsifiable. I do not think it can be tested one way or the other.

But the hypothesis of creationism has been falsified. And the hypothesis of a young earth has been falsified. Hence, young earth creationism (or a literal scientific reading of the Genesis accounts of creation) has been falsified.

But people criticized that creation can not be falsified.

I think you will find that is a criticism of Intelligent Design, not of creationism. Creationism, i.e. the hypothesis that a literal reading of the Genesis accounts as if they were a scientific description has been falsified.

Why do I wish it could be falsified?

Because if it can't be falsified, it can't be tested. If it can't be tested, there is no evidence for it being true.

I WISH it would NEVER be falsified.

Of course. This is what any scientist wants for his hypothesis: that it be falsifiable, but NOT falsified. One should be able to test the hypothesis, but one hopes that the test does not indicate it is false.

So, yes, you hope it would never be falsified. But you also hope it could be, since, if there is no way of putting it to the test, it is not science at all.

So, when people said it could not be falsified, I am very happy because it says that creation IS true.

That depends. If they mean it has been tested and the test has not shown it is false, you have reason to be happy. It doesn't say for sure that creation is true, but it does mean it is possibly true. In this case, to say "it could not be falsified" means "It is falsifiable (i.e. testable), but it has not been falsified."

But if they mean there is no way to put it to the test, then you may not have a reason to be happy. For in this case to say "It could not be falsified" means it is not falsifiable i.e. there is no test by which to determine if it is true or false. Therefore it is not science. It may be faith, belief, but not scientific knowledge.

I think you like to see TE be falsified, don't you? If it were falsified, are you happy? If it could not be falsified, are you not happy?

Perhaps after you read the preceding paragraphs you will understand why I say, no, this would not make me happy.

I wish I can say something about science which can not be falsified. Why do I want to see my scientific theory be falsified?

Again, this depends on what you mean? Do you mean, it has been put to the test and not shown to be false, or do you mean it cannot be tested?

In the latter case, your choice of words should be "falsifiable" not "falsified".

Since science depends on testing its ideas, why would you want to say something about science that is not falsifiable? That is an oxymoron. If it is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

Of course, you don't want to see your theory falsified, but you do want it to be falsifiable, for otherwise it is not a scientific theory at all.

At least according to the Popperists.

 

[juvenissun]

I think you are still not grasping the crucial difference between "falsifiable" and "falsified".

OK, I got it now. Thanks.

Then why is ID or Creationism (are they the same?) not falsifiable?

How could anything or any idea be "not testable"? Show me an example.

 

[Oliver]

The hypothesis that an entity which would be invisible, untouchable, etc... exists and has such and such properties (that noone can test). This would be an unfalsibiable hypothesis.

One such example is the invisible pink Unicorn: noone can test if it is pink, since it is (supposed to be) invisible.

 

[Tinker Grey]

[pedagogical aside]

I wonder if EvC debate would proceed more smoothly if the word 'testable' was used in lieu of 'falsifiable'.

OTOH, perhaps something can be tested in various ways but lack the quality of falsifiability.

What do y'all think?

[/aside]