Sure, but I'd have to see how it's defined - if there's any trickiness involved in just what the principle of falsification is.
No trickiness marc, it's straight forward enough.
For something to be considered science, it is supposed to be something that the scientific method is applicable to. Here's the first paragraph at Wikipedia that defines the scientific method;
quote:The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or
correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation,
testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Scientific method - Wikipedia
The bolded parts refer to falsification. So, to be considered science an idea has to be falsifiable by definition. So out with creationism and/or ID
as science. It's not by definition.
I think it's a difference in character, when the number of angles of exploration is so low that testability and falsifiability become weakened to the point of non-existence. After all, that is the reason the concept of Intelligent Design has failed in court cases.
Why does the number of angles matter in falsification. All it requires is one. ID has none, zero angles of falsifiability. If someone is accused of rape and a DNA analysis clears them, they are cleared. The prosecutor doesn't come back with, "Yeah, but that is evidence from just one angle."
I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable.
If the application of the scientific method isn't applicable then there really isn't any other source of knowledge that is going to add anything to our knowledge base of what happened in the past. Chemistry happens based upon the nature of the elements and molecules involved in reactions, the intrinsic forces of nature of matter. Misapplications of probability also result from considering the outcome of evolution to have been "the goal" of the process. Historic writings disagree with each other just like various versions of
creation science. You're welcome to pick and choose and believe what you like but it isn't going to be scientific.
Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied.
You are not a YEC so I assume you refer to evolution rather than the age of the earth. So let's tentatively accept you viewpoint and consider it. We have the creator placing animals upon the earth or fashioning them from the dust, whatever your particular view is, while the continents slowly divide and move about causing the raising of the ocean floor and subsequent changes in the environment. This causes some animals to go extinct. But rather than those which are able to survive evolving into various new forms, you have God coming down again to create new animals and spread them about. As time passes and the environment changes and more extinctions occur God continues to do this again over eons of time. To what end? Why? God could have created the earth in the final desired state and created appropriate animals to inhabit that environment from the start. Faith's world view makes more sense than your own.
What has happened light years away is visible to the eye so I take it that it is the purported distances you dispute? How old do you take the universe to be marc? You have to answer that before I can comment further. For example if the universe were 6,000 years old Adam and Eve would have looked up into the night sky and would not have seen any stars. The starlight had no time to reach them yet. At the end of the first millennium the light from stars up to 1,000 light years away would be reaching the earth. At the end of the 2nd millennium the light from stars up to 2,000 light years away would reach earth. New stars would constantly be popping into view.
™ Version 4.2
