Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <189@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 11:31:52 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.189
Posted: Wed Apr 17 11:31:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 00:02:46 EST
References: <7187@watdaisy.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 44

>       Another gripe is that you and other creationists dont really
> understand the constraints of science.  One of the major aspects of a
> scientific theory is that it be "falsifiable".  That is, a good theory
> doesn't merely explain everything; it specifically predicts that certain
> observations, if made, would prove the theory wrong.  It is this aspect that
> keeps astrology out of the realm of science.  If a theory or concept cannot
> be disproven (i.e. that evil spirits cause disease and just make it look
> like germs), then it is not science!
> 
> 
>       I hope you see the point Lief.  Evoluton on the otherhand, is
> disprovable (it is just that the evidence to disprove it has not been
> found).  

Maybe you should provide your definition of evolution before you say its
disprovable. In particular, what "observations would prove the theory
wrong"? If my definition agrees with yours that evolution involves a
transition from one species to another, then the only observation that
would disprove the theory would be to watch all species for infinity for
an ocurrence of that transition. Since there can't be a time constraint
since a transition could occur after any arbitrary end, the theory can
never be disproved. Now don't get sidetracked on whether my definition of
evolution matches yours. The point is that only theories with a set of
discrete observations for falsifiability can be disproven.

Now ask yourself how many accepted scientific theories are really
falsifiable according to your criteria. Can you disprove gravity?
What observation would do so?

Couldn't I then say that creation is falsifiable by the observation that
it occurred a different way. Which observation is easier to observe. Both
are rather difficult.

So you see that creation can be disproved. It has one discrete observation
that will falsify it, but no one is old enough to remember.

Which brings me to a more salient point. Creation concerns itself with an
event that took place once and only once by definition. There can never be
an observation proving or disproving it. Evolution is a process. The two
can't really be compared as to observations. Any origins theory, which is
the only thing creation can be compared with, also is neither provable or
disprovable.

	Mike Johnston