Summations Only

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation

It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined

And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory

From this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology

It is these issues that I purpose discussing in some detail to demonstrate that Secular Fundamental Humanists conclusion and the specifics I have mentioned, that alledgedly support thier assertions, are simply not the case

It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation

In post 107 of the thread Why We Should Not Expect Many of Any Creationists, I began to develops arguments in response to these assertions

It is here I would like if permitted to continue these arguments if permitted

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DawnBertot writes: would it be possible for myself and Phat or whoever to continue with our creation discussion in another venue or thread?

Yes. I put this in Free For All. Here is the original post i made that started your counterargument:
I thought i might provide a framework, from Creation science found on Wikipedia. The article states that

quote:

---

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[8][9] Creation science is a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts,[10][11][12] and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly[13] and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[14]

---

They go on to say this:

quote:

---

Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.[68] The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[69]

Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions[citation needed]. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[70]

Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.[71] In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.[72] Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.[11][12][73][74]

---

You then responded in several posts, which I shall condense here:

DawnBertot writes: t falsifiabilty while useful is a human contivance and concept. The easiest way to show the limitations of it is ironically to falsify falsifiabilty. Heres a simple illustration. Things either exist or they do not. Since they clearly do no other information will Ever contradict or upset that fact. Hence existence is an axiomatic truth even if it is an illusion. Falsifiability can have no application ever where this kind of truth exists It should be obvious to even the simplest of persons that no information ever will conclude that things Do Not Indeed exist. So Falsifiabilty is clearly limited and is not to be understood as applicable in these instances Fortunately design is of The same character as existence itself, it is a clearly demonstratable as an axiomatic truth I think we can develope this as we move along in any further discourse It's not enough for the skeptic to mentally dismiss design, he needs to show that clear Purpose that follows from intricate design is not present Since it clearly is design or creation if you will, it is on the same order of existence itself Your simple task is to show in either instance these two things don't actually exist. Should be easy enough correct? Thirdly it should be noted that Biological Evolution theories are not testable if we are to apply the principle of falsifiabily. The obvious conclusion of BE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Since there is no way to test that theory or falsify it in any respect, either You are not doing science or the principle of Falsifiabilty is not required in some instances and it is therefore limited in its application Every theory idea or investigation has a natural Conclusion even BE. Since there is no way to falsify it, either you are not doing science or its not necessary, to still do actual science. Creationism is on the same order of evidential investigation. It does not rely on the written Word of God for its investigations and Conclusions Hence it follows we are doing science in the very same way and coming to conclusions the very same way as that of the so called Scientific Method But if someone wishes to challenge my conclusions you free to do so, please have at it

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the The Science in Creationism thread in the Suggestions and Questions forum.

Dawn, would you mind giving me say 3 examples of things that would falsify your belief in the Biblical version of YEC and also 3 things that would falsify the Ussher chronology world wide flood? (assuming you believe in those)

Thanks
JB

TA
I will get to this as quick as I can. I am happy to respond to any queries and or arguments
Dawn Bertot

The first hurdle that creationism needs to get over, at least in the arena of biology, is in explaining the basic observations.

What mixtures of physical characteristics should we see or not see in both living and fossil species, and why? Should we see fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Yes/No, and why?

When we compare the DNA sequence of genes from different organisms, what does creationism predict we will see, and why? If there is a 10% sequence difference between a mouse and human gene and a 20% difference between that same human gene and the orthologous chicken gene, then what should the difference be between the chicken and mouse gene, and why?

If creationism can't answer questions like these in a testable and falsifiable manner, then it isn't a scientific theory.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Sorry for the lateness of my response. First as to the question or whether I believe in a young earth or old. I have no problems with young earth creationism due to the fact that the miraculous if that were a part of it skews the what would otherwise look testable in nature
An example we could consider Adams age at his creation. He would have appeared much older than he actually was. If creation is true the we are not privileged to a lot of information that would change the actual facts as they would now appear, if the bible is ones belief

But I have always leaned twords the Gap theory as I see it in Genesis 1:1-2. Granted this is a great presumption but it would be consistent with the nature of God and what we Might see in nature.
Either or, it matters not to how creationism is established intially

Secondly ThinAir I am in the affirmative intially In this discussion. In other words I have set out certain arguments concerning Falsifiability, especially concerning it's limitations and how it should be applied
If you could address that issue initially and the arguments I set out on it then we will be in a better situation to answer your 2 questions.

As a good sport however I will give a response to those in hopes that you will respond to my earlier arguments

So as an answer directly to your question I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itself

So early on you see two things. Creationism does not rely on the written word for its scientific approach and if we apoly a faulty limited definition of falsifiability, then of course a lot of things could be considered falsifiable in or out of the scriptures

So let's see what your response will be to axiomatic truths when the test of falsisifiability is applied to it. Then we can move speedily to your queries

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If you have previously listed things that would falsify YEC and a Noahic flood, could you please copy them into this thread.

If you have not previously listed such things, could you please list them in this thread.

Thanks

JB

In other words I have set out certain arguments concerning Falsifiability, especially concerning it's limitations and how it should be applied...

Is there any precedent in the philosophy of science literature concerning your critique of the criterion of falsifiability? If so, what are the relevant authors I should read up on? If not, can you explain in more depth why your argument has philosophical merit?

So as an answer directly to your question I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itself...

But that's not what TA was asking for, is it? TA was not asking a question regarding falsification of the overall teleological perspective of life; he/she/it was asking a very specific question -- namely, how your Biblical model for the origin of species can be falsified. The Biblical model is a very specific version of events; so how would it be falsified? If it's not falsifiable, then it's not really science.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Biblical model is a very specific version of events; so how would it be falsified? If it's not falsifiable, then it's not really science.

---

This.

Dawn doesn't get to decide the tenets of science -- falsifiability being one of them. Scientific theories are falsifiable -- period.

While I understand your questions please explain how and why these observations would apply to whether a thing was created, or created to operate in this manner you suggest or came about as a natural process directed by chance
How would this change my propositions concerning how creation is initially considered
Dawn Bertot

While I understand your questions please explain how and why these observations would apply to whether a thing was created, or created to operate in this manner you suggest or came about as a natural process directed by chance...

Well, not to jump ahead of Taq, but these are easy questions:

1. If a biological species was created according to the Biblical version of events, what predictions would we make about that thing? If no tangible, meaningful predictions can be made, then it's not science. It might be something else; but it's not science.

2. Why would these observations apply if biological species came about through the natural mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis? Well, for starters, we would expect a nested hierarchy of DNA sequences, since all of life would be genealogically related under the Neo-Darwinian explanatory framework. And we do indeed see that nested hierarchy in molecular phylogenies, paleontology, morphology, etc.

This discussion has nothing initially to do with YEC creationism or biblical perspectives
You have imposed something on my OP that is not there
Dawn Bertot

Instead of insisting that I provide you with a leading authority.
It would be better to respond to my actual argument. Which is how would you falsify an axiomatic truth like existence itself. And for our purposes here Purpose as a clear observable result of intricate design

We can as we go along see if design is a matter of perspective or whether it is as axiomatic as say existence itself

Again I am not yet entertaining questions of biblical models of creation
Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

YOUR topic here is clearly titled "The Science in Creationism".

One tenet of science is "falsifiablity". Thus I am asking for the falsifiability of Creationism (and the flood)

It's your OP, not mine. You have clearly imposed science on creationism so answer the question please.

JB