Who has the burden of proof? evolutionists or creationists

[Deamiter]

As far as I know, no creationist has ever presented any positive proof that the sun, moon and stars all have roughly the same age and are exactly three days younger than the earth.

They have a long way to go.

Don't YOU start mixing up your terms too! There is no such thing as "positive proof" and that people think that science tries to prove theories is evidence that the basic nature of concepts like science, evidence and proof are sorely misunderstood!

That said, I agree, it'd be incredibly significant if a creationist could even draw together some EVIDENCE that the Sun, moon and stars are three days younger than the Earth.

 

[Assyrian]

There is one sense that we can talk of 'the burden of proof' in the case of ID vs Evolution. The basis of ID is the claim that there are 'irreducibly complex' structures and systems that could never have been formed from simpler structures. In basing their claim on something being impossible they have taken an enormous burden of proof on themselves. Scientists don't have to show and prove how each step took place, they simply have to show simpler forms of the system that exist, or suggest possible pathways, to show its complexity is quite reducible. Even a Just So Story of how a system might possibly have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, is enough to overturn irreducible complexity, because irreducible complexity claims there are no stories possible.

 

[lucaspa]

Okay as I understand it the prosecution in a court of law has the burdon of proof.

Science isn't a court of law. Law deliberately injects bias into the process: it is better for 99 guilty people ot go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Please note that the bias in France is exactly the opposite. See below for discussion of "burden of proof".

So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution.

But they aren't. You are "shifting the burden of proof" by trying to make evolution shoulder all of it.

As it turns out, tho, scientific theories are evaluated by attempting to show they are wrong. This is due to deductive logic: true statements cannot have false consequences. Therefore we take theories (collections of statements) and test their consequences.

For instance, the theory "the earth is flat" has false consequences. Therefore we have shown it to be wrong.

When evolution (the scientific theory) and ID (the scientific theory) are tested, ID is shown to have false consequences and is wrong. Evolution has not yet been shown to have false consequences and we conclude (provisionally) that it is true.

Now, please don't confuse this with saying that Christianity or God is wrong. ID as a scientific theory is wrong. God can still exist and create thru evolution.

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden
"Burden of Proof refers to the sense you have, in any dispute, of how much each side needs to prove in order to win your agreement. Sometimes, this burden of proof is an established rule: in the United States, for example, the criminal court system operates on the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which means that the prosecution carries all of the burden of proof; if the defendant is not proven guilty, then he or she should not be convicted of a crime, even if the defense cannot or does not prove him or her innocent of that crime.... In most arguments, however, it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo--the current beliefs, practices, and information--which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the matter, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. "
"Intentionally shifting the burden of proof, in order to avoid offering support for one's premises, is a logical fallacy. "