Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation? Message-ID: <546@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 14:32:21 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.546 Posted: Fri Apr 19 14:32:21 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 01:09:13 EST References: <7187@watdaisy.UUCP> <189@spp1.UUCP> <541@cadovax.UUCP>, <293@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 104 [.............] > In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: > > "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase > >precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations > >and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but > >I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon > >their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " > > > This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would > disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism, > this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life > in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE), > this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the > creator can create. Being aware of the fact that creationists at the ICR must sign an affidavit attesting that they believe that the Bible is to be taken literally etc. it would appear that such an observed transmutation could then be explained as an 'act of God' or a 'miracle' or who knows what, but dosen't necessarily disprove creation. (as one would expect from current creationist tactics). > If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this > may also do the job. > > Though creation as a religious belief is not falsifiable, > creation SCIENCE is falsifiable. > > I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution > could be falsified? > > Dan > One basic prediction of evolution is, that life, *all* life, as diverse as it is linked up in a hierarchical arrangement of similarities. We might postulate then, that all life is constructed using the basic building block DNA. If however we discovered one or more life forms that didn't use DNA as a building block, we may have falsified at least one aspect of evolutionary theory. Various sub-theories of evolution have been tested again and again over the past 200 years, effectively causing great refinement of evolutionary theory as a whole. If a new theory surfaces that purports to explain the facts that evolution is now based on, it should be possible to construct an experiment that would show that one or the other theory is false. In particular, some aspect of the new theory that conflicts with evolution would be singled out, and some experiment designed to test whether evolution or the new theory was correct based on this conflicting aspect. A possible example: If, we discovered a new aspect of some living creature, say at a cellular or molecular level... lets say we found that a particular type of monkey, had a peculiar mechanism for accomplishing some biological phenomena. Lets say it had a chemical system based on 'xylophene' (remember this is supposed to be an example) and this new chemical system allowed the monkey to read minds. In addition, lets say we have a new theory that postulates that because of some new reasons for origins that conflict with evolution, that no other species would have this 'xylophene' system. And, being an extremely sophisticated system, you might expect there to be some evidence of such a systems evolution otherwise. We could then go out and look for another species with the 'xylophene' system. If none were found, then we have failed to falsify the new theory, and have falsified at least one prediction of evolution. Looking further, and developing more tests, we could then begin to determine which theory fits the facts better. Niles Eldrige on evolution: "...On the other hand, the basic prediction of evolution, as we have just seen, is abundantly confirmed. Does this mean that we have proven evolution to be "true"? It is more accurate to say that, thus far, we have failed to *falsify* the notion of evolution, but it is always possible that new observations will show that the apparent pattern of progressive similarity that seems to link up all life is, in some sense, false. Also, it is possible that someone in the future will come up with an idea other than evolution that will also predict the patterns of similarity we see in the organic realm. As of this writing, no one has come up with an alternative, *testable* idea (one that yields predictions) to explain the patterns we all see. Creationists of course, agree that there is a pattern of similarity conecting all forms of life. They merely claim that it pleased the Creator to fashion life in this way. But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imagineable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. .... ...This simple prediction--that there is one grand pattern of similarity linking up all life--dosen't *prove* evolution. But the failure of scientists to *disprove* evolution over the past two hundred years of comparative biological research means that evolution really is one of the few grand ideas of biology that has stood the test of time. The basic notion of evolution is thoroughly scientific in the strictest sense of the word, and as such is highly corroborated and at least as powerful as the notion of gravity or the idea that the earth is round, spins on it's axis, and revolves around the sun." -Niles Eldredge, 'The Monkey Business' pp.38-40 When a theory simply postulates 'magic' as an answer to any conflicts that occur, you don't really have any basis for testing one theory against another. Again, science always prefers natural processes to 'magic'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "Science Marches On"