Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Falsifiability
Message-ID: <3570018@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 23:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: csd2.3570018
Posted: Sun Apr 28 23:37:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 02:28:17 EDT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 70

[]

>>    "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
>> precisely because it cannot be falsified.
>
> 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.
> If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this
> may also do the job.

I'd say there's another requirement for falsifiability (I'll try not
to add any more, I promise). To wit, you have to explain *why* these
observations would falsify creationism. For example, I could say
"Evolution would be falsified if the Indians won the world series
this year." Unless I explain why this would falsify evolution,
this prediction has no value. To your credit, you don't give
predictions which are as safe as mine (sorry, all you Indian fans).
Also, you do give some explanation for the prediction that scientists
will be unable to create life in the laboratory.

But I still don't see why the events you give would falsify evolution.
I am not sure what you mean by a transmutation, so I'll pass on that
prediction (further explanation welcome). I don't see why creation
holds that only the creator can make life from nonlife. And I also
don't see why the creator would not have made a transitional species.
In addition, by the discussion on the network so far, it seems that
creationists are unwilling to accept a species as transitional
just because it is a physical intermediate, but require other
evidence for its transitional status. So to these creationists,
advancing physically intermediate species as evidence for evolution
is circular reasoning. (By the way, I do not totally disagree
with this).

So, I ask you to explain your predictions based on creationism
further, or to give new ones.

In case you haven't caught the predictions made by evolution
that have been given on the net recently, here are a couple.
In light of my comments above, I also give a short explanation
of why each prediction would falsify evolution.

1. Fossils belonging to species that are believed to have evolved
recently will not be found in old strata. To some degree this is
a flexible prediction, since beliefs about when fossils evolved
are based largely on the fossil record. But, based on the fossil
record that we know about, we now have a reasonably detailed
hypothesis about the order in which different species evolved.
While it might not be too disturbing to find species slightly out
of this order in new strata, it would just not do to find human
fossils in PreCambrian strata.

This would falsify evolution since the species that have evolved
recently should not have been around to be fossilized when
the older strata were laid down.

2. Species which are believed to have diverged recently (i.e. based
on the fossil record), and which have corresponding proteins, will
not be too different in the nonfunctional sections of the protein;
species which are believed to have diverged long ago will be
very different.

This prediction is made by evolution since mutations in the
nonfunctional section of proteins would be expected to mount up
over time.

Isaac Dimitrovsky