Posted on 02/08/2005 10:26:54 AM PST by DannyTN
I agree with you that it's not falsifiable in that sense. But in that case, neither is Evolution falsifiable. It may be impossible to prove no natural process could ever bring about the life forms as we see them today. No matter how statiscally improbable it looks, there will always be an evolutionist saying there must be some other natural process we haven't considered.
Next, "Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation". This is falsifiable, as they explain in their footnote. Except that they haven't defined what they really mean by "genetic information" (which is what the statement references), and in fact I've never really had a creationist adequately define "information" with respect to genetics (and someone feel free to fill me in on this). So, it's a falsifiable claim, once creationists get their terminology in order.
I agree that information needs definition. I have a concept of what it means, sort of a subroutine or functional program within DNA with the functionality for an organ or body part to work, but nailing it down to a concise definition might be hard. And that one was just off the top of my head.
Next, "Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms". This is not a hypothesis statement, this is an assumption. They've already proposed a "Creator" without having even come up with a complete theory. This is called assuming the conclusion, and moreover no justification is given for the assumption of exactly what is the "Creator's perogative". It is not valid within a scientific theory.
I think it's a valid hypothesis statement. And it is reflected in nature when two organisms develop similar functions despite being in separate "evolutionary trees". The problem I have with this statement is what if God tweaked the code, so it's different. How many ways can you write a for loop in a program? So not being identical wouldn't falsify the theory.
Moving on, and skipping their admitted non-falsifiable statements and also their blatant lie regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which they just threw in to claim that evolution theory would violate it, a typical creationst dishonest statement
I dissagree that that is a blatant lie. I'm not crazy about using the term "Second Law of Thermodynamics", but there is evidence that the mutations create a negative load on species. That the order that is decays and doesn't increase. That we are deevolving not evolving.
we come to "General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected". Now this, this is the first real prediction that they have made. I honestly cannot find fault with this statement (in speaking of its validity as a scientific hypothesis/theory, not in the truth value of the statement itself). Of course, since this is thus far the only really valid scientific statement (the second once the creationists pushing this "theory" define "genetic information" in a satisfactory way), it's a rather flimsy argument.
The next, and final statement, addressing errors in dating methods, is "Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood" again claims falsifiablity, but again isn't. The explanation for falsifying it is "if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.". Except that they've not yet shown that multiple dating methods could all give the same erroneous date for the same material under specific conditions. Thus, the statement is actually non-falsifiable, or at least they haven't provided a falsification criteria that is actually valid.
I'm not crazy about that one either. But I think they could have expanded it and broken it into several more. There are many hypothesis about the flood that could be elaborated. But then the flood wasn't really the theory being discussed. The radiometric dating does need to be discussed, but the flood is far from the only possible explanation for bad radiometric dates.
Now finally, what really bothers me, is that the above are just -- as admitted in the article -- components of a creationist paradigm.
Get over it. It bothers us just as much that evolution components are the components of an anti-scriptural naturalistic and often (not always) atheistic paradigm.
They may form the basis of "creation theory", but the actual "theory" itself is never definitively stated.
Wouldn't that be pretty obvious? The theory is that God created the animals by kind in accordance with the Genesis record and that creation has been under either stasis or slow decay every since with some speciation within kind.
Moreover, only two statements could potentially be falsified, and the two of them together do not lead to any inherent conclusions. Even accepting all of the statements that do not appeal to supernatural constructs as part of the "theory", I cannot derive any conclusions from them, much less "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".
The conclusions are the individual hypotheses. The design can still be investigated. Similarities and differences and functionalities and mutations can all be investigated. There is little difference in what can be studied or concluded under Creation Theory than under Evolution Theory.
With the Theory of Evolution, a series of testable, falsifiable statements based upon observations of the natural universe were put together to come up with the coherent explanation that biodiversity on earth is the result of mutation and natural selection starting with a common ancestor (or common ancestors) that became more and more diverse as populations were isolated in radically different environments where different genetic traits created different survival advantages. Whether or not you agree that it is true, it's still a series of statement that logically flow to a conclusion. Not so with "creation theory". At best, it's an attempt to show that evolution is impossible and that one or two things in the world might possibly coincide with how some people think the Bible described some events in the past. You can't get a coherent conclusion from that.
I agree it has logical flow to a conclusion. But I see a similar logical flow with Creation. There may not be as much flow since the kinds all started at creation instead of having an interconnectedness from common ancestry. But there is connectedness through common design. But creation makes statements about where we are headed (decay) just as evolution does. It's just in the opposite direction.
Oh, of course. So it wasn´t the Church who burned Kopernikus for claiming that the earth is a globe? It wasn´t the church who banned Galileos scripts and forced him into isolation until his death? No, surely it must have been evolutionists. Man, do you really believe the crap you write here?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Because if there is no God, I, being man, am the most ultimate being. You are also. How could one dispute this?
No, the church didn't burn Copernicus. And the church's dispute with him wasn't over the shape of the earth either it was whether the sun revolved round the earth or the earth around the sun. For the most part the church ignored Copernicus as he didn't have a lot of followers.
Even atheist don't claim the church burned Copernicus. Atheists on Copernicus
The Roman Catholic church did ban his work in 1616, but that was during a period that the Roman Catholic church leadership had become very corrupt.
And while Galileo did have a run in with the Roman Catholics over the same issue. He wasn't exactly kept in isolation.
From the Roman Catholic Advent site..."Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. "
Galileo believed scripture to be inerrant and that the Roman Catholic leaderships had wrongly interpreted a verse. And they had. They took a verse that described the sun's motion around the earth relative to a viewpoint on earth and assumed that it meant the sun must travel around the earth relative to any point in the universe. They were wrong. The whole point of the verse cited was that Man didn't know how God accomplished these things. Galileo
See post 117
It is good we have such an esteemed expert as you who can easily tell what is figurative poetry in the Bible and what must be taken seriously.
It isn't just my opinion. The source you cite is admittedly liberal, though not all contributors are. It is a favorite of Unitarians and other such "progressive" groups because it generally reflects their bias.
One thing is certain, though: Critics of biblical literature tend to think they get to decide what is literal and figurative based on no historical context, an English translation, and a 19th Century Tubingen weltanshauung.
No? Then offer a source for your views.
Not exactly scholarly either it it?
Do you believe there is a being superior to you?
I'm not attempting to dispute the Genesis account. My position is that Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a book of wisdom that was inspired by God to explain to people at that time how they came to be. You can't talk about DNA to people who don't about cells or chromosomes. Considering how much we don't know now, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
This was completely appropriate for 1200 BC. To try to use it now as a literal description of creation leaves a number of gaps. It's just too incomplete as a technical or scientific description.
It's not unusual for Christians who work in the sciences to look at their work as inspired by God. This is after all, God's creation. It may be that some time in the future, the new knowledge will be considered inspired and recorded in another revision of Genesis.
I think there's a reason that Jesus spoke in parables and that he said in John 5:39-40;
You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.