I am familiar with Schroeder. If I understand him, he says what is 15 billion years to us may be six days to God, from another perspective. I have no problem with that. But from our perspective, it is still 15 billion years.
Dolphin was a member of the Stanford Research Institute and did work for the Defense Dept, I think. The crux of Dolphin's argument is a variant c. The core of his belief is biblical faith. But from emails with him, he is pushing Vc [no longer uses cDK] as his main argument. I am sorry I forgot the name of Norman. I should have mentioned him among Dolphin, and Setterfield. Dolphin marshalls arguments why it is not measurement error and why Vc has to be so.
Dolphin pushes Vc since it is the 800 lb gorilla. If true - and I doubt Vc is - it snatches the speed of light vs. distance argument away from Big Bangers. The speed of light vs. distance is one of the most powerful weapons in the Big Bang/Evolutionary canon [pun intended]. Now Dolphin may have other arguments for a six day creation but he concentrates on the 800 lb gorilla. So far, to my mind, the gorilla is winning. But you gotta love the guy. He does not go after the weak argument, the straw man. He goes after the biggest dragon on the block.
I am not convinced of Vc at this point. There are a host of problems with it. And without Vc, Evolution is very strong. So I remain a theisitic evolutionist. Still Dolphin is probably one of the few truly amiable and intellectual forces in the debate.
You asked me for a test of falsification. No one thing could do it. In paradigm shifts no one thing is critical. Read Thomas Kuhn's THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
The body of evidence at this point for me weighs in heavier wtih evolution.
I was really hoping I could goad you out of this mindset with my chinamen comment. Oh well. Semmelweis was right regardless of the paradigm of his peers, and he had the proof to back it up. Nevertheless, all those esteemed doctors didn't like washing their hands, so out the door he went!
At this point, peer review means very little where evolutionary theory is concerned. As Dembski has pointed out, in so many words, to be falsified in the minds of evolutionary theorists today, the critic must show a datum where evolutionary mechanisms are excluded even to the imagination of the evolutionists! In other words, it's an open question in name only, both to "science" in general, and you in particular. (BTW...despite much sound and fury, I've never seen anyone put a dent in his math beyond the "it can't be correct cause it doesn't support my opinion" type)
Personally, I'm still looking for an evolutionary explaination for "instinct," and while I have no doubt there is one, wonder about the hush on the issue. Instinct is nothing but information, in the sense of software that has programed a behavioral choice within the range of possible behaviors, so it's no wonder to me I can't find any popular explainations.