Why do YEC Christians commonly challenge the theory of evolution, while...

[Subduction Zone]

Now I'm still trying to get my head around your definition of falsifiability and how it applies to evolution.

In order for Evolution to be falsifiable there must be some statement which, if true, would prove Evolution false.

What statement is that?

It is not "my definition" of falsifiability. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia on scientific theories:

"Typically for any theory to be accepted within most academia there is one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself.


The tectonic plates of the world were mapped in the second half of the 20th century. Plate tectonic theory successfully explains numerous observations about the Earth, including the distribution of earthquakes, mountains, continents, and oceans.
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable."

(bolding is mine)

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Of course there is the classic, the theory of evolution predicts that there are no Precambrian Bunny Rabbits. But there are other examples, evolution tells us that creatures that violate phylogeny cannot exist. In other words mythical creatures such as the chimera cannot exist with the fur of a lion and feathers of an eagle. The existence of such a creature would also refute evolution. Yet it is very possible with creationism. One needs to ask oneself why does all life obey the predictions of evolution and creationists cannot even come up with a testable hypothesis of creation. The fact that creationists cannot come up with a testable hypothesis means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.

 

[BigV]

Christianity is not a science, it is a religion. And you are correct, it can happen. Though having said that, there is clearly a reason why writers thought it was a miracle. If science says that people will sink if they step onto water, then it is just agreeing with what everyone has observed since before even the Bible was written down.

If walking on water was normal, then all of the disciples would have stepped out of the boat, Peter wouldn't have had any doubts and would have jumped out and run to Jesus.

So clearly Christians were and are no different to everyone else. That the miraculous happened as highly unusual, not normality. I've come across only one other case of it happening in all my years of Christian belief (Mel Tari's Like a Mighty Wind about the Indonesian Revival).

I really think you should listen to John Lennox talk about miracles and how there is no problem with them happening.

Well, and I am coming to the first point again and again, Christians should stay away from evolutionary science if they are okay with separating science and religion. Have your miracles outside of science. But no, Christians insist on miracles in the biology.

Now, since miracles do happen, there is a problem for Christianity, since the miracles are not unique to Christians.

For instance, there is a miracle of the resurrection by Sai Baba, performed in the 20th century.

Sathya Sai Baba Miracles - The resurrection of Mr. V. Radhakrishna

Walking on water pales in comparison. Now, why don't we study miracles in high schools, colleges and universities? They seem to be so prevalent.