Yes — but how does one "falsify" macroevolution theory? Or panspermia theory? It seems to me they are both unfalsifiable; so I don't understand how they get ranked as "scientific" theories to begin with.
Doesn't the scientific method require falsifiability — such that what is not falsifiable does not qualify as an object for science?
What is the "information content" and "specificity" of macroevolution theory? (Or panspermia? Or special creation?)
Questions, questions. Is there a Darwinist out there who can give me any answers?
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your excellent essay/post!
>>Yes — but how does one “falsify” macroevolution theory? Or panspermia theory? It seems to me they are both unfalsifiable; so I don’t understand how they get ranked as “scientific” theories to begin with<<
Easy. Find a modern human skeleton in the same strata as a dinosaur. Or even a modern horse.
I am not quite sure how panspermia applies — it is not a Scientific Theory.
Truly neither Special Creation nor Panspermia can be falsified at all.
And there is precious little that could falsify macro-evolution theory, e.g. unexpected fossils. I imagine whenever such things have been found or will be found, the first priority is to develop a plausible explanation for the anomaly - because the theory itself is more of a paradigm than a theory.
The same can be said of other "historical" sciences such as archeology, anthropology and Egyptology.
The reason for this glaringly insufficient inability to falsify "historical" science theories is that the absence of evidence, uniquely to them, is not evidence of absence.
Precious few of the creatures that ever lived left a record of themselves. And none of them left a complete record.
Therefore, in my view all historical science disciplines are inferior to the hard sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry. All of them require good story-telling and faith.