Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Philosophy of science and Creationism
Message-ID: <307@umich.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.307
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 05:38:40 EDT
References: <11384@rochester.UUCP> <615@hou2g.UUCP> <143@ucdavis.UUCP> <12288@rochester.UUCP> <46@utastro.UUCP> <297@umich.UUCP> <69@utastro.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 39

bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes:

>>>NOTHING could in principle ever disprove [...] that "what we observe
>>>in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism".  

>>I'm an agnostic, but in fairness to atheists, I wouldn't rule out the possi-
>>bility of disproving that assertion -- it might be done by proving that God
>>does not exist.  

>I don't see any way that metaphysical assertions about the existence or
>nonexistence of God (or the Damager-God, for that matter :-) can ever be 
>proven.  Correct me if I am wrong, but how could one establish the truth
>or falsehood of such propositions?

Well, (by one definition) God is supposed to maximally benevolent and 
omnipotent, which seems to have observational consequences that could be
falsified ....

>>But more to the point, you have understated creationism.
>>It doesn't just say that "whatever is in nature, God created it".  It says
>>"certain things (e.g. evolution, a multibillion-year-old earth, etc.) ARE
>>NOT in nature".  That statement is falsifiable -- and falsified!

>I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have
>been falsified.  But I don't think that the issue.  To me the issue is
>whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by 
>resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. 

Well, although I can't argue with the example (omitted to save space)
which you gave concerning Henry Morris's views on the age of the universe,
I don't think that's the typical pattern.  In most cases they try to deny
the evidence against them.  So, insofar as they hold to falsifiable claims,
they are within the domain of science; thus their theory is "scientific"
in the neutral sense which does not connote truth or evidential support.

This may have unappetizing consequences for the constitutionality of
certain laws mandating equal time for their theory.

--Paul V Torek, cutting the Gordian knots			torek@umich