Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.
---------ToE is the speculation of how nature hammering (rather simple) living organisms, but trying to draw the conclusion (implicitly if not explicitly) that all species coming to their existence through evolution.First, God can create everything then allow them to be continued to be hammered by the nature. 1) you speculated changes by the nature, it by no means says that that's how species coming from. 2) speculating the behavior of simple life forms can't be used as a proof for the much more complicated life forms. You can't conclude that "mammals must have evolved from a single cell (or whatever declared simple life form) because I speculated the speciation of bacteria. It is a fallacy to draw such a conclusion, as the complexity of how mammal organs (heart, brain, eye...etc) are formed cannot be deduced from the speciation of bacteria. To simply put, you can't say that "because bacteria evolved, mammals must have evolved from a single cell", which is a fallacy.This is actually related to the falsifiability of science.Science is the claim of a repeating pattern govern by a set of rules. The biggest misunderstanding of the argument between evolution and creation is that, evolution made a claim that it is repeatedly true that species coming to existence through evolution. While creation never made such a claim. As a result, creation is tied to a historical truth instead of a scientific truth. Creation thus doesn't require any support from predictability or falsifiability.To simply put, only a repeating pattern govern by a set of rules bear the characteristic of predictability and falsifiabillity. Questioning the predictability and falsifiability of creation itself doesn't make much sense.Science is about how you speculate that something repeats, then you try to find out the governing rules behind it. If what you found is the truth, you shall be able to use your set of rule to predict that behavior of the claimed repeating process. If you failed to predict even once, your set of rules shall be considered falsified.For an example, water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen. First, this is a repeatable pattern. Second, it is govern by a chemical formula. So if you established your theory well, you shall be able to use your formula to predict the dissolution of any water picked by any third party even from Mars or Neptune. If water from Neptune doesn't dissolve into oxygen or hydrogen as predicted, your theory is falsified.You won't say that "because water in my toilet is stink, water in my friend's toilet is stink, thus all water must be stink". The statement is a fallacy in that it won't allow any third party to pick any water to get to the same result. It thus possesses no falsifiability at all.On the other hand, if the water in Neptune refuses to dissolve at all, you may have to establish a 'paradigm' under which your formula still works by excluding the water from Neptune.Similarly, if ToE implicitly if not explicitly says that "All species come to existence through the repeatable process of evolution", you need to allow any third party to pick any species to speculate its evolution from a single cell to its current state. Or else, it makes not much difference to say the "I show you the evidence that water in my toilet is stink, that's why all water must be stink".On the other hand, if crocodile refuses to evolve, that is, no changes by the nature can be speculated by far, you need to establish a paradigm to exclude it from your theory.Creation on the other hand, is never a repeatable process, it is thus not govern by any rules and thus your can't use any rules to make predictions for creation itself to be falsified.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Unlike the seeking of historical truth, the presentation of scientific evidence must be supportive to a certain stage of the repeating process itself. So whenever you say that "this is supporting evolution", you need to specify it supports the evolution of what and from what. You don't simply say "chemical reaction occurred" then call your theory chemistry, you need to specify "chemical reation of what, from what and to what". That's what chemistry is supposed to be, or else your claim is never falsifiable.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Using your analogy, the theory we have here is that water is wet. Everywhere we test this theory it produces accurate predictions. Every time we test the theory that water is wet it turns out to be wet.
======Since when evolution ever allowed a thrid to examine it from a single cell to a, say, cat? dog? cow? tiger? lion?Over 99.99% existing species cannot be examined using ToE to see how they repeatedly being brought to existence from a single cell to its current form. That's why it doesn't possess any falsifiability to what is claimed, that is, (not some wet) but living organism coming from a single cell to its current state.

Could you explain the difference between historical truth and scientific truth? They both require empirical evidence, do they not?
=======It seems that you are asking for something which you considered out of topic.Historical truth happened only once in history. Scientific truth is something repeatedly happen, is repeatedly happening, and/or continue to repeatedly happen in the future. That's why it bears the characteristic of predictability as it will repeat itself in the future. If on the other hand, for things which happened only once, you can't predict how they happen the next time as they only happened once.

Creationism on the other hand is not even a historical truth. It is a religious belief.
======================That remains your own assertion. How do you know that religious belief can't be a truth? By the lack of evidence? That's fallacy, sorry to tell you that.------
"Creation science" is a broad claim that there is testable and repeatable evidence that a literal Genesis is true, but creation science fails every test. It is a falsified scientific theory and holds nothing that could be called truth, historical or scientific, in a literal sense.
------I've already pointed out that's a completely wrong concept about testability and falsifiability.Only something repeats will be able to bear the characteristic of predictability and falsifiability. Creation is referring to a one time process.In a nutshell, something repeats or can be repeatable, humans found out the set of rules which governs this repeating behavior. And this set of rules thus can be verified and confirmed through its predictability by predicting the future behavior of this repeating phenominon.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Are you quite sure you understand the philosophy of science? I'm an intelligent design proponent, but c'mon, to say stuff like "Over 99.99% existing species cannot be examined using ToE to see how they repeatedly being brought to existence from a single cell to its current form" is kinda silly.
======================I logically presented you the true meaning of falsifiability and predictability.No one can ever demonstrate you how a dog or cat or pig or (put whatever organisms you know of here)evolved from a single cell. Make a full list here if you can't believe that you can't examine 99.99% of the evolution of species from a single cell.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

What makes you think there is no evidence for the evolution of all species?Your statement here is flawed, as it never specifies from what and to what.What evidence do you have which show the evolution of all species from a single cell, and to their current states?Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

So you're saying that creation definitely is not science.==============I think that I stated clear enough that science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeating behavior. Creation never made a claim of a repeating process. What ID does is actually a scientifically assisited history study. I said it long time ago that creation/ID is not a science per se.