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!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <541@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 22:55:28 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.541
Posted: Wed Apr 17 22:55:28 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 00:43:49 EST
References: <7187@watdaisy.UUCP>, <189@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 61

[.............]
> 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

It appears that what we have here is some confusion as to the aspects of
evolution and creation.  As you said, evolution is a process.  Evolution
is not per-se an origins theory.  Evolution has little to do with how
it all got here, but what it has done since it has been here.  This may
include origin of species, but not necessarily origin of the universe.

From Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hens Teeth and Horses Toes'  pp.256:

"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion
of science is the falsifiability of its theories.  We can never prove
absolutely, but we can falsify.  A set of ideas that cannot, in principle,
be falsified is not science.
   The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical
attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among
its supporters.  Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific"
because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution.
Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.  One does not
become a scientist by simple act of trying to falsify a rival and
truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that
also meets Popper's criterion--it too must be falsifiable in principle.
   "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. " 

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd