Debate - Ongoing controversy, the EvC question

A whole topic dedicated to evidencing the exact complaint of intelligent persons: That the scientific worldview and its most ardent members believe the only pathway to truth is theirs.The bias of the scientific worldview against other worldviews proves their defect and fundementalist nature. Science has no problem recognizing the unseen (celestial bodies/quantum mechanics) but suddenly fail to make the same deductions when it comes to spiritual truth.Scientists love the power that their predecessors the religionists held, and they will rule the exact same way even though they said they wouldn't.As I said in another topic - its the same business on the other side of the street.

How about the arguments of EvC member Brian and others that Genesis is myth.That is falsifying the claim that Genesis is the God-protected version of events.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but the principle of falsifiability is quite different from what you seem to think.Falsifiability means you can say exactly what material evidence would contradict your hypothesis or theory. If such evidence appears, you then abandon or modify it. When one says that creation is unfalsifiable, the implication is that no particular piece of concrete, factual evidence would ever be accepted by its adherents as disproving it. Why? Because it is based on faith and not scientific evidence.

Now I am more confused.Wasn't the initial claim just a bare "Genesis cannot be falsified ?"

Maybe I should have re-read the thread... I hope I'm not just muddying the waters. I only object because you used the term in a manner that suggested a serious misunderstanding of its connotations. Falsification is a fairly specialized term in this context and does not simply mean "the offering of counterarguments." Thus, I only attempted to explain that falsifiability is a vital component of a scientific concept, and when someone says your idea is unfalsifiable, the only reasonable defense is to explain in concrete and specific terms what evidence would cause you to honestly change your mind about your belief. If you cannot point to anything, then falsifiability is seriously in question. This does not mean your view is necessarily wrong. It means your view will not hold water if tested by the scientific method.

FOr "truths" about the natural world what other pathway would you suggest? How would your pathway be better? If two different individuals hold different views on the "truth" about some aspect of the natural world how would they use your approach to pick between them? How would others discern which had the "better" (more likely to be "true" ) view?

quote:

---

How about the arguments of EvC member Brian and others that Genesis is myth.
That is falsifying the claim that Genesis is the God-protected version of events.

---

That is a counter-argument, not a real falsification. A falisification would be concrete proof that the author's acutally intended Genesis as a mythical retelling of earth's creation.We often say that special creation has been falsified, and then claim the stance is unfalsifiable. Both are right, but from differing viewpoints.To the evolutionist, or science in general, special creation 6,000 years ago has been falsified by the theory of uniformitarianism. That is, it is assumed that mechanisms working today acted in the same exact fashion throughout time (as far as Earth is concerned). Through this lens, there is evidence that falsifies young earth creationism.However, YEC's bring up the theory of a "mature earth". That is, God created the earth 6,000 years ago in such a way to make it look billions of years old. This would have to include planting fossils, organizing fossils, changing isotope ratios in rocks to reflect old age, and so forth. This position supports the YEC position, but can not be falsified and therefore explains nothing. Also, ad hoc hypotheses are also used. These are inherently non-falsifiable (such as Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory). Instead of a water canopy, you could just as easily argue that millions of large UFO's partially blocked out the sun and then used teleportation to dump billions of gallons of water onto the earth.I would say that the Genesis account has been falsified by observations in the natural world. It is only through unfalsifiable ad hoc hypotheses that YEC creationists are able to argue for their position. It is not a matter of interpretation of the data, but of ignoring the importance of falsification that makes creationism a pseudoscience.

quote:

---

However, YEC's bring up the theory of a "mature earth". That is, God created the earth 6,000 years ago in such a way to make it look billions of years old. This would have to include planting fossils, organizing fossils, changing isotope ratios in rocks to reflect old age, and so forth. This position supports the YEC position, but can not be falsified and therefore explains nothing. Also, ad hoc hypotheses are also used. These are inherently non-falsifiable (such as Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory). Instead of a water canopy, you could just as easily argue that millions of large UFO's partially blocked out the sun and then used teleportation to dump billions of gallons of water onto the earth.

​

I would say that the Genesis account has been falsified by observations in the natural world. It is only through unfalsifiable ad hoc hypotheses that YEC creationists are able to argue for their position. It is not a matter of interpretation of the data, but of ignoring the importance of falsification that makes creationism a pseudoscience.

---

THANK YOU.That's what I was trying to figure out how to say earlier. Great explanation.

First I want to thank Zephyr for pointing out my error.Loudmouth:I just want say that YEC's do not interpret the Bible correctly and should not be given status as representative of Creationism.

I agree that the natural world is best unveiled by this present scientific worldview.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-21-2004 03:09 PM