Replies

Neither Evolution, ID, nor Creationism is completely falsifiable. However, contrary to evo claims, both ID and Creation Science have models that do make individual predictions, which can be confirmed or falsified. Just like evolution though, the failure of one prediction, does not invalidate the theory.

Not quite right. If we were to find a modern horse, human or dog fossil from millions of years ago, it TToE would be falsified (as I believe I already pointed out). Creationism and ID, OTOH, are not falsifiable, since the Supreme Intelligence can create whatever conditions it wants "on the fly."

It can be said that the theory of evolution has been modified with "punctuated equilibrium", "convergent evolution", etc. Like evolution, neither ID nor Creation claims to have a complete understanding of everything that happened. But I would say that all three are generally complete and not tentative.

You my say so, but you would be wrong. The picture changes and is emerging all the time. In the last few months some amazing changes to TToE have emerged.

Again, CR/ID don't change, since THEY CAN'T. At their core is an Intelligent Designer or Supreme Being that is by definition omniscient and thus unchangeable.

Only in the field of evolution does "naturalistic" become part of the definition of science. There are many fields of science in which "design" plays a part. Forensic sciences and geology frequently look to see if something was caused by man or was caused by other forces.

"Forensic science" is applied science. Just because something has the word "science" in it doesn't make it a pure science pursuit. That is why introducing the term "Creation Science" is so amusing -- "oh! It has the word 'science' in it! That must mean it is Science!"

So to say that in the field of life sciences, a designer cannot be considered a primary cause, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt by evo's to narrow the scope of science until no other explanation that evolution exists, because all others have been defined away.

In an applied science, human intervention is always possible. Your analogy fails as specious at best.

We now have designer corn. But under your definition of science, anyone looking at a vegetable would be forced to conclude that it arose strictly from happenstance because no other explanation is defined as "science", even thouth genetic modifications are clearly a science.

No, any biologist worth his salt would say "a HUMAN introduced these changes because of..."

That is NOT the same as an omniscient designer.

Oh, like evolution makes the least assumptions possible!!!!

Admittedly, CR/ID makes exactly one assumption. But it uses the same assumption for every datum it encounters: the Designer did this. But that is more of an assertion than an assumption. TToE tries to minimize assumptions to draw the straightest line between the data available.

Evolution has made many many false predictions. For example evolutionists taught us that there were something on the order of 169 vestigal organs in the human body, including the tonsils, the appendix and the tailbone. Now not one is believed to be vestigal. Evolution taught us that much of DNA is "junk DNA". But we now are discovering function to that "junk DNA".

So has every science. But it is understanding of TToE that provided the impetus for exposing the Genome. Had CR/ID held sway, today we would be looking at DNA saying "dunno -- must be the Designer. Looks too complicated to me."

TToE has been able to explain a lot of data. And of course, it has been able to explain and sometimes predict (to some degree) micro-evolution we see right under our very eyes. I ID and Creation do make predictions, some prove correct. And some prove false. Just like evolution.

Please provide evidence if a single ID or Creartion prediction proven correct and tied in to The Designer.

I've already pointed out that evolution has made many false predictions. It's not "very accurate". But each time new observations are made, evolution restates itself and incorporates the new observations post humously as "predictive". Evolution didn't predict "punctuated equilibrium", but once the fossil record did not show a continous progression like evolution predicted, the theory was modified to fit the observations. And now it's claimed that evolution predicts punctuated equilibrium, when it really did not such thing.

So, when new dta are available and science adjusts to that, it somehow "proves" it was bad to begin with? You really need to understand the scientific process better. Any scentifi pursuit that DIDN'T change based on new data would be less than useless. Now, what changes have been made in the CR/ID model? NOne, since the only change that COULD be made would be as a result of understanding The Designer.

Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it? There are. Answers in Genesis posts article after article demonstrating evidence. A biased mind however, can reject those evidences. As one evolutionist on FR told me, we must have evolved because we are here. Thus when you aren't willing to consider any other possibility, evolution becomes the most likely.

Again, there is no other SCIENTIFIC possibility at this time. There is no Genuine Evidence of a Designer. It (or He) didn't stamp "Made in Heaven" on the million year old bones to make it clear.

We see transitional fossils. We see micro-evolution in front of our eyes. There is no EVIDENCE of a Designer stepping in. But we do see EVIDENCE of physical changes forced by the environment at the DNA level.

"If we were to find a modern horse, human or dog fossil from millions of years ago, it TToE would be falsified (as I believe I already pointed out). "

No it wouldn't. It wasn't that long ago that we found a dinosaur with a mammal in it's mouth that wasn't previously believed to have existed during the dinosaur age. Did it falsify evolution? No. Evolution did what it does best, it just shifted it's conclusions and it's timeframes.

If you found a modern horse, human or dog, from millions of years ago, you'd do the same thing. You'd just claim there must be a common ancestor even older than that, that you haven't found yet.

"The picture changes and is emerging all the time. In the last few months some amazing changes to TToE have emerged. Again, CR/ID don't change, since THEY CAN'T. "

The basic premise of all three don't change. Evolution still says life descended from a common ancestor. Just like Creation still says God created. But the gaps in the underlying information are constantly analyzed and filled in.

ID and Creation proponents are still looking at the designs and noting similarities and differences. We are still curious in the variety of life on the earth and how ecosystems work. And the effects of changes on ecosystems. We want to understand extinctions as much as the evo's. We want to understand if possible, how God constructed the first DNA. To say Creation theory doesn't change based on observations is just false. God did it, but there are many questions yet to be answered about what exactly God did, how God did it, why God did it certain ways, the techniques God used, etc.