The main point made is that scientific models should be judged on their ability to make correct predictions. If a model's predictions correspond to carefully obtained observations, the model is considered to be successful.
The author also points out that the difference between science and religion is mainly that science is derived from observations while religion is derived from authoritative texts and persons.
With this account in view, I would like to ask: What correct predictions have any creationist models produced?
Also, if religion is based on arguments from (usually ancient) authority, why would one expect religion-based models to have predictive power and so qualify as science?
what? maybe im misinterpereting what youre saying here, but from what my measly powers of dedution tell me religion is NOT falsifiable? logically that doesnt make sense, seeing as there are a little bit more than only one religion, and theyre mutually exclusive.This statement is false.
Religions make both falsifiable and nonfalsifiable claims. For instance, "there was a man called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans" is a falsifiable claim. "Everything that happens does so for a reason, even if we don't know what it is" is not a claim that can be falsified.
That may be the source of your confusion. Religion makes both falsifiable claims of fact and unfalsifiable claims of teleology.
Just because religions are mutually exclusive doesn't make them falsifiable - it just means you don't know which one is true.
Crash's distinction is a good one, but many religious viewpoints are not falsifiable even on points of fact. Noah's flood is thoroughly falsified in any number of ways, but if you're allowed to invoke miracles - supernatural interventions to circumvent natural law - then no scientific objection matters. Indeed, many creationist organizations explicitly state than on any matters that science conflicts with the revealed word of God, science must be mistaken, and will eventually be shown to be consistent with scripture.